Source of ethics, and morality

[ding]

So, God is always moral, and ethical? He cannot command man to do anything that is immoral? That is your contention?

My personal belief is, God doesn't have any reason to command humans.

Why would an omnipotent God have to command anything?

I don't believe He is commanding us, but I do believe He is pruning us. Mind you not actively, but passively through the Laws of Nature. Virtue is the greatest organizing principle of men. When people behave virtuously, predictable success will NATURALLY follow. When people behave without virtue, predictable failures will NATURALLY occur. Would a Creator who was good, not leave a way for us to figure out the difference between right and wrong?

Man is born with the ability to know right from wrong and when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept, he rationalizes that he did not violate it. Men don't do evil for evil's sake, they do evil for the sake of their own good. So from this we can know that man prefers good over evil.

So getting back to the concept of God pruning us, how can we know if we are truly doing good or doing evil and rationalizing that we are doing good? The answer is simple... outcomes. Moral laws are not like physical laws. When we violate a physical law, the consequence is immediate. Not so for moral laws. The consequence of violating a moral law is not usually immediate, but since error cannot stand it will eventually fail. And when it does, if we are honest and paying attention we will come to know the error of our way and repent (i.e. transform). Thus evolving our consciousness (i.e. growing as human beings) and continuing our march towards the next leap in the evolution of matter.

"Remember, man, you are dust and to dust you will return."

 

[ding]

A good comparison between absolute morals versus relative morals would be abortion. We know it is wrong to unjustifiably end a human life. Everyone agrees with this. We also know from science that human life begins at conception when a genetically distinct new human being comes into existence. No one can argue against this scientific fact. Absolute morals would inform us that it is wrong to end this human life regardless of circumstance. Relative morals on the other hand require the dehumanization of this human life, to justify the ending of this it. It has been done in a variety of ways. We see this type of rationalization being made on almost every issue were there is a conflict between absolute and relative morals. In effect moral relativity surrenders to absolute morality because it needs to justify wrong as right.

Life just isn't that precious

I would say that life, especially beings that know and create, is the most precious gift in the universe. It is most certainly the rarest.

I think stars are the most amazing things. We come from stars that died and flung their guts into the universe long before our star was even born.

And every star probably has life surrounding it. Before earth it's possible Mars had life. And there may be life in europa

You will eventually discover that God knew your energy before space and time were created. Eastern religions have a belief that life is a forgetting and death is a remembering. I believe they are probably right.

You hope. Believe and hope are not the same

We each must decide for ourselves what the evidence means. I do not put faith is something without having good reason to do so first. I have that good reason. At the end of the day you can't prove to me what love feels like or prove to me what a strawberry tastes like. I have to prove those things to myself. This is the same way.

 

[ding]

For the same reason robbing a bank would be universally considered wrong by all but the thieves. Obviously the perps and people too cowardly to take a moral stand on anything, would have a differing opinion. There is no flaw in my argument. The flaw is your relativism.

"By all but..." implies with their very words, that the moral principle is not universal. By definition, any principle that is universal would be held without exception. As soon as you are able to list exceptions, that negates the claim that the principle is universal.

Qualifier was made. You're struggling now with semantics. This is another popular device used by the alt-Left defending their perverted ideology.

Semantics, my ass. Universal, by definition, does not require a qualifier,. because there are no exceptions. That is kinda the meaning of universal.

I see your head is stuck so far up your sick ideology that it's no wonder you're unable to comprehend what's being said to you.

I understood perfectly what you are trying to say. The problem is that what you are trying to say is nonsense. "There are morals that are universal...except to those who don't agree with them..."

How is... slavery is wrong, slavery has always been wrong and slavery will always be wrong, not a universal standard?
How is... murder is wrong, murder has always been wrong and murder will always be wrong, not a universal standard?
How is... adultery is wrong, adultery has always been wrong and adultery will always be wrong, not a universal standard?

You keep trying to argue against universal truth by using morally relativistic examples. Of course those example don't prove universal truth. How can they? They are examples of moral relativism.

 

[Boss]

Since there is clearly no God, even discussing the idea of an imaginary God being the author of morality is neither interesting, nor important, as the conclusion is self-evident. No God, so morality comes from self, or, at best, from a cultural agreement.

How have you drawn the conclusion there is "clearly no God?" I want to see your evidence there is clearly no God because I don't think such evidence exists. I think this is YOU trying mostly to convince yourself of your belief that no God exists. I will admit, there is no evidence for any particular perception of God over another. But clearly, something beyond the physical must exist.

Physics itself is proof of God. Here's the paradox. The very first laws of physics state that matter cannot create matter and energy can't be created or destroyed. Yet matter and energy exists. How? The physical universe cannot have created itself. It's this dichotomy that causes man to contemplate something beyond the physical.

Two problems with your statements. First, is a lack of understanding of scientific research. "There is no God" is the default null position of research. It does not require "evidence"; it is the default position. To adjust to the position of "There is a God" requires objective evidence. Thus, it is not the responsibility of anyone to "prove" there is no God. That is the given. it is the responsibility of those who claim that God exists to provide evidence of that exstence.

The second problem is that you are relying on Euclidean physics to make your claim that matter, and energy cannot be created from nothing. When you move past Euclidean physics, into quantum physics, suddenly all of those preconceptions fall away. The concept of a creator depends on a universe that has a begining, and an ending. However, the current quantum theories suggest that it has neither. There is no logical or metaphysical obstacle to completing the conventional temporal history of the universe by including an atemporal boundary condition at the beginning. Together with the successful post-Big-Bang cosmological model already in our possession, that would constitute a consistent and self-contained description of the history of the universe.

As Stephen Hawking once proposed, "So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end, it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?"

The thing is, when we get into the realm of quantum physics, dark energy and dark matter, your "physical evidence" prerequisites for a God become even more ridiculous. Once we've opened the door of possibility to an infinite number of universes with a variable number of dimensions of space and time and they can all have their own set of physical principles and reality... then saying "clearly no god" becomes no different than looking at all the stars in the sky and saying "clearly no life"... it's just an almost preposterous impossibility.

More interesting is modern science. Quantum physics is a century old. Isn't that remarkable? It amazes me that each time Science believes we are on the brink of answering the age old questions about our origin, the more they discover things they can't explain, that completely change what we believed. Like 96% of our universe being comprised of something we can't directly relate with physically. Dark matter and dark energy.

As we approach the event horizon of a black hole, our physics principles start to break down and spiral wildly out of control. Nothing travels faster than the speed of light because time slows down and would theoretically cease. If there is no time, there can be no travel. This explains why black holes are black.

At the subatomic level, we collide atoms to see what makes them tick. Researchers at the large hadron collider (CERN) have made mind-numbing discoveries about the atom and electrons. Tiny parts of particles... things that contradict the standard model.... like particle entanglement. Electrons appearing in two places at the same time. Electrons present but not occupying any space in time. Photons are even more remarkable, seeming to have the ability to go back in time and change what they are.

So the very essence of science is being challenged today in the new sciences of quantum physics. If something like quantum physics can supersede physical sciences, why can't a God?

 

[Czernobog]

A good comparison between absolute morals versus relative morals would be abortion. We know it is wrong to unjustifiably end a human life. Everyone agrees with this. We also know from science that human life begins at conception when a genetically distinct new human being comes into existence. No one can argue against this scientific fact. Absolute morals would inform us that it is wrong to end this human life regardless of circumstance. Relative morals on the other hand require the dehumanization of this human life, to justify the ending of this it. It has been done in a variety of ways. We see this type of rationalization being made on almost every issue were there is a conflict between absolute and relative morals. In effect moral relativity surrenders to absolute morality because it needs to justify wrong as right.

Life just isn't that precious

I would say that life, especially beings that know and create, is the most precious gift in the universe. It is most certainly the rarest.

I think stars are the most amazing things. We come from stars that died and flung their guts into the universe long before our star was even born.

And every star probably has life surrounding it. Before earth it's possible Mars had life. And there may be life in europa

You will eventually discover that God knew your energy before space and time were created. Eastern religions have a belief that life is a forgetting and death is a remembering. I believe they are probably right.

You hope. Believe and hope are not the same

Since there is clearly no God, even discussing the idea of an imaginary God being the author of morality is neither interesting, nor important, as the conclusion is self-evident. No God, so morality comes from self, or, at best, from a cultural agreement.

How have you drawn the conclusion there is "clearly no God?" I want to see your evidence there is clearly no God because I don't think such evidence exists. I think this is YOU trying mostly to convince yourself of your belief that no God exists. I will admit, there is no evidence for any particular perception of God over another. But clearly, something beyond the physical must exist.

Physics itself is proof of God. Here's the paradox. The very first laws of physics state that matter cannot create matter and energy can't be created or destroyed. Yet matter and energy exists. How? The physical universe cannot have created itself. It's this dichotomy that causes man to contemplate something beyond the physical.

Two problems with your statements. First, is a lack of understanding of scientific research. "There is no God" is the default null position of research. It does not require "evidence"; it is the default position. To adjust to the position of "There is a God" requires objective evidence. Thus, it is not the responsibility of anyone to "prove" there is no God. That is the given. it is the responsibility of those who claim that God exists to provide evidence of that exstence.

The second problem is that you are relying on Euclidean physics to make your claim that matter, and energy cannot be created from nothing. When you move past Euclidean physics, into quantum physics, suddenly all of those preconceptions fall away. The concept of a creator depends on a universe that has a begining, and an ending. However, the current quantum theories suggest that it has neither. There is no logical or metaphysical obstacle to completing the conventional temporal history of the universe by including an atemporal boundary condition at the beginning. Together with the successful post-Big-Bang cosmological model already in our possession, that would constitute a consistent and self-contained description of the history of the universe.

As Stephen Hawking once proposed, "So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end, it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?"

The thing is, when we get into the realm of quantum physics, dark energy and dark matter, your "physical evidence" prerequisites for a God become even more ridiculous. Once we've opened the door of possibility to an infinite number of universes with a variable number of dimensions of space and time and they can all have their own set of physical principles and reality... then saying "clearly no god" becomes no different than looking at all the stars in the sky and saying "clearly no life"... it's just an almost preposterous impossibility.

More interesting is modern science. Quantum physics is a century old. Isn't that remarkable? It amazes me that each time Science believes we are on the brink of answering the age old questions about our origin, the more they discover things they can't explain, that completely change what we believed. Like 96% of our universe being comprised of something we can't directly relate with physically. Dark matter and dark energy.

As we approach the event horizon of a black hole, our physics principles start to break down and spiral wildly out of control. Nothing travels faster than the speed of light because time slows down and would theoretically cease. If there is no time, there can be no travel. This explains why black holes are black.

At the subatomic level, we collide atoms to see what makes them tick. Researchers at the large hadron collider (CERN) have made mind-numbing discoveries about the atom and electrons. Tiny parts of particles... things that contradict the standard model.... like particle entanglement. Electrons appearing in two places at the same time. Electrons present but not occupying any space in time. Photons are even more remarkable, seeming to have the ability to go back in time and change what they are.

So the very essence of science is being challenged today in the new sciences of quantum physics. If something like quantum physics can supersede physical sciences, why can't a God?

It can. WHEN THERE IS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT. You just want us to "believe", No evidence. No proof. Just...believe he's out there. That is the difference between quantum mechanics, and religion. There is actual evidence that can be demonstrated in mathematical formulas to support the theories of quantum mechanics. Show me the "God" formula.

 

[Czernobog]

"By all but..." implies with their very words, that the moral principle is not universal. By definition, any principle that is universal would be held without exception. As soon as you are able to list exceptions, that negates the claim that the principle is universal.

Qualifier was made. You're struggling now with semantics. This is another popular device used by the alt-Left defending their perverted ideology.

Semantics, my ass. Universal, by definition, does not require a qualifier,. because there are no exceptions. That is kinda the meaning of universal.

I see your head is stuck so far up your sick ideology that it's no wonder you're unable to comprehend what's being said to you.

I understood perfectly what you are trying to say. The problem is that what you are trying to say is nonsense. "There are morals that are universal...except to those who don't agree with them..."

How is... slavery is wrong, slavery has always been wrong and slavery will always be wrong, not a universal standard?
How is... murder is wrong, murder has always been wrong and murder will always be wrong, not a universal standard?
How is... adultery is wrong, adultery has always been wrong and adultery will always be wrong, not a universal standard?

You keep trying to argue against universal truth by using morally relativistic examples. Of course those example don't prove universal truth. How can they? They are examples of moral relativism.

Those aren't universal standards; they are absolute standards. Two different things. I never suggested that there are not absolutes, only not universally accepted.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[sealybobo]

Life just isn't that precious

I would say that life, especially beings that know and create, is the most precious gift in the universe. It is most certainly the rarest.

I think stars are the most amazing things. We come from stars that died and flung their guts into the universe long before our star was even born.

And every star probably has life surrounding it. Before earth it's possible Mars had life. And there may be life in europa

You will eventually discover that God knew your energy before space and time were created. Eastern religions have a belief that life is a forgetting and death is a remembering. I believe they are probably right.

You hope. Believe and hope are not the same

We each must decide for ourselves what the evidence means. I do not put faith is something without having good reason to do so first. I have that good reason. At the end of the day you can't prove to me what love feels like or prove to me what a strawberry tastes like. I have to prove those things to myself. This is the same way.

The other day on modern family the girl went with Gloria to the medium. She could so see it was a scam. Gloria was so happy as she paid the medium and she turns to the girl and says, "do you see now?" And the girl just said "yea, I think I do".

Who am I to piss on your parade? But when a congressman gets up and starts talking about Jesus I wish you all knew how ridiculous or insulting is to so many non Christians. Or if you say God you should know us atheists take notice to that stuff.

I think the more we talk about religion here the more we realize this really is the only place to be making these arguments
Because honestly anyone coming here wants to have this conversation. I know many theists who have come and left. You and boss love to talk about your beliefs. I love it! I love a forum where I can come and scream there is no God! And if there is you better be good

 

[sealybobo]

Life just isn't that precious

I would say that life, especially beings that know and create, is the most precious gift in the universe. It is most certainly the rarest.

I think stars are the most amazing things. We come from stars that died and flung their guts into the universe long before our star was even born.

And every star probably has life surrounding it. Before earth it's possible Mars had life. And there may be life in europa

You will eventually discover that God knew your energy before space and time were created. Eastern religions have a belief that life is a forgetting and death is a remembering. I believe they are probably right.

You hope. Believe and hope are not the same

Since there is clearly no God, even discussing the idea of an imaginary God being the author of morality is neither interesting, nor important, as the conclusion is self-evident. No God, so morality comes from self, or, at best, from a cultural agreement.

How have you drawn the conclusion there is "clearly no God?" I want to see your evidence there is clearly no God because I don't think such evidence exists. I think this is YOU trying mostly to convince yourself of your belief that no God exists. I will admit, there is no evidence for any particular perception of God over another. But clearly, something beyond the physical must exist.

Physics itself is proof of God. Here's the paradox. The very first laws of physics state that matter cannot create matter and energy can't be created or destroyed. Yet matter and energy exists. How? The physical universe cannot have created itself. It's this dichotomy that causes man to contemplate something beyond the physical.

Two problems with your statements. First, is a lack of understanding of scientific research. "There is no God" is the default null position of research. It does not require "evidence"; it is the default position. To adjust to the position of "There is a God" requires objective evidence. Thus, it is not the responsibility of anyone to "prove" there is no God. That is the given. it is the responsibility of those who claim that God exists to provide evidence of that exstence.

The second problem is that you are relying on Euclidean physics to make your claim that matter, and energy cannot be created from nothing. When you move past Euclidean physics, into quantum physics, suddenly all of those preconceptions fall away. The concept of a creator depends on a universe that has a begining, and an ending. However, the current quantum theories suggest that it has neither. There is no logical or metaphysical obstacle to completing the conventional temporal history of the universe by including an atemporal boundary condition at the beginning. Together with the successful post-Big-Bang cosmological model already in our possession, that would constitute a consistent and self-contained description of the history of the universe.

As Stephen Hawking once proposed, "So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end, it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?"

The thing is, when we get into the realm of quantum physics, dark energy and dark matter, your "physical evidence" prerequisites for a God become even more ridiculous. Once we've opened the door of possibility to an infinite number of universes with a variable number of dimensions of space and time and they can all have their own set of physical principles and reality... then saying "clearly no god" becomes no different than looking at all the stars in the sky and saying "clearly no life"... it's just an almost preposterous impossibility.

More interesting is modern science. Quantum physics is a century old. Isn't that remarkable? It amazes me that each time Science believes we are on the brink of answering the age old questions about our origin, the more they discover things they can't explain, that completely change what we believed. Like 96% of our universe being comprised of something we can't directly relate with physically. Dark matter and dark energy.

As we approach the event horizon of a black hole, our physics principles start to break down and spiral wildly out of control. Nothing travels faster than the speed of light because time slows down and would theoretically cease. If there is no time, there can be no travel. This explains why black holes are black.

At the subatomic level, we collide atoms to see what makes them tick. Researchers at the large hadron collider (CERN) have made mind-numbing discoveries about the atom and electrons. Tiny parts of particles... things that contradict the standard model.... like particle entanglement. Electrons appearing in two places at the same time. Electrons present but not occupying any space in time. Photons are even more remarkable, seeming to have the ability to go back in time and change what they are.

So the very essence of science is being challenged today in the new sciences of quantum physics. If something like quantum physics can supersede physical sciences, why can't a God?

It can. WHEN THERE IS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT. You just want us to "believe", No evidence. No proof. Just...believe he's out there. That is the difference between quantum mechanics, and religion. There is actual evidence that can be demonstrated in mathematical formulas to support the theories of quantum mechanics. Show me the "God" formula.

Keep in mind none of these people are trying to convince us this God talked to Moses jjesus Mohammad or Joseph Smith? People who believe in generic creator thing they call God is harmless. Pondering that will never go away because it's unknowable.

I'm cool as long as you don't try to convince me it visited you or your ancestors or that me not believing it exists is punishable by something I wouldn't do to my worst enemy

 

[Boss]

It can. WHEN THERE IS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT. You just want us to "believe", No evidence. No proof. Just...believe he's out there. That is the difference between quantum mechanics, and religion. There is actual evidence that can be demonstrated in mathematical formulas to support the theories of quantum mechanics. Show me the "God" formula.

Much of quantum physics is without evidence and only exists as mathematical theory. For instance, Google "string theory" and you'll find about 160 different varieties from various sources and not one universally held idea or formula. The quantum physicists and theoretical physicists debate back and forth over who's opinion is correct.

Essentially, quantum physics does more to kill atheism than anything ever discovered in physical science. Again, if quantum physics can supersede what we've understood as "the standard model" then why is a God impossible? You are literally saying we can have an infinite number of dimensions and realities with the exception of one where a God exists.

So I guess, if you die and your spirit travels to another dimension, and you find yourself in front of some pearly gates, you can argue that you were just plain ignorant of quantum physics which made such a reality possible... maybe they'll put you up in the purgatory suite?

 

[Czernobog]

It can. WHEN THERE IS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT. You just want us to "believe", No evidence. No proof. Just...believe he's out there. That is the difference between quantum mechanics, and religion. There is actual evidence that can be demonstrated in mathematical formulas to support the theories of quantum mechanics. Show me the "God" formula.

Much of quantum physics is without evidence and only exists as mathematical theory. For instance, Google "string theory" and you'll find about 160 different varieties from various sources and not one universally held idea or formula. The quantum physicists and theoretical physicists debate back and forth over who's opinion is correct.

Essentially, quantum physics does more to kill atheism than anything ever discovered in physical science. Again, if quantum physics can supersede what we've understood as "the standard model" then why is a God impossible? You are literally saying we can have an infinite number of dimensions and realities with the exception of one where a God exists.

So I guess, if you die and your spirit travels to another dimension, and you find yourself in front of some pearly gates, you can argue that you were just plain ignorant of quantum physics which made such a reality possible... maybe they'll put you up in the purgatory suite?

You said it yourself - the theories of quantum mechanics can be expressed as mathematical equations. God cannot. You keep talking about quantum physics as if it is based solely on faith, with no evidence, but the evidence is in the math. Show me the math of divinity, and I will be the first to change my mind.

 

[ding]

I would say that life, especially beings that know and create, is the most precious gift in the universe. It is most certainly the rarest.

I think stars are the most amazing things. We come from stars that died and flung their guts into the universe long before our star was even born.

And every star probably has life surrounding it. Before earth it's possible Mars had life. And there may be life in europa

You will eventually discover that God knew your energy before space and time were created. Eastern religions have a belief that life is a forgetting and death is a remembering. I believe they are probably right.

You hope. Believe and hope are not the same

We each must decide for ourselves what the evidence means. I do not put faith is something without having good reason to do so first. I have that good reason. At the end of the day you can't prove to me what love feels like or prove to me what a strawberry tastes like. I have to prove those things to myself. This is the same way.

The other day on modern family the girl went with Gloria to the medium. She could so see it was a scam. Gloria was so happy as she paid the medium and she turns to the girl and says, "do you see now?" And the girl just said "yea, I think I do".

Who am I to piss on your parade? But when a congressman gets up and starts talking about Jesus I wish you all knew how ridiculous or insulting is to so many non Christians. Or if you say God you should know us atheists take notice to that stuff.

I think the more we talk about religion here the more we realize this really is the only place to be making these arguments
Because honestly anyone coming here wants to have this conversation. I know many theists who have come and left. You and boss love to talk about your beliefs. I love it! I love a forum where I can come and scream there is no God! And if there is you better be good

Honest men can have honest differences of opinions without having to act like jerks or be afraid to express their opinion. That is what growth filled communities do. They explore all sides of an issue to arrive at objective truth. I am happy enough for you to express your non-belief. It doesn't diminish me one bit. I do not need to tear down your non-belief to validate my beliefs. With that said, my faith and the faith of others informs our opinions and we should not be required to check our beliefs at the door as you suggest just because our beliefs make you feel uncomfortable. We do not forfeit our right to participate in the governance of the society we share with others, just like you do not forfeit your right to participate just because you have different beliefs.

 

[ding]

It can. WHEN THERE IS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT. You just want us to "believe", No evidence. No proof. Just...believe he's out there. That is the difference between quantum mechanics, and religion. There is actual evidence that can be demonstrated in mathematical formulas to support the theories of quantum mechanics. Show me the "God" formula.

Much of quantum physics is without evidence and only exists as mathematical theory. For instance, Google "string theory" and you'll find about 160 different varieties from various sources and not one universally held idea or formula. The quantum physicists and theoretical physicists debate back and forth over who's opinion is correct.

Essentially, quantum physics does more to kill atheism than anything ever discovered in physical science. Again, if quantum physics can supersede what we've understood as "the standard model" then why is a God impossible? You are literally saying we can have an infinite number of dimensions and realities with the exception of one where a God exists.

So I guess, if you die and your spirit travels to another dimension, and you find yourself in front of some pearly gates, you can argue that you were just plain ignorant of quantum physics which made such a reality possible... maybe they'll put you up in the purgatory suite?

You said it yourself - the theories of quantum mechanics can be expressed as mathematical equations. God cannot. You keep talking about quantum physics as if it is based soley on faith, with no evidence, but the evidence is in the math. Show me the math of divinity, and I will be the first to change my mind.

His invisible attributes can be seen in what He has created. The universe is a self-referential system which in certain ways behaves mentally like a mind.

 

[ding]

Qualifier was made. You're struggling now with semantics. This is another popular device used by the alt-Left defending their perverted ideology.

Semantics, my ass. Universal, by definition, does not require a qualifier,. because there are no exceptions. That is kinda the meaning of universal.

I see your head is stuck so far up your sick ideology that it's no wonder you're unable to comprehend what's being said to you.

I understood perfectly what you are trying to say. The problem is that what you are trying to say is nonsense. "There are morals that are universal...except to those who don't agree with them..."

How is... slavery is wrong, slavery has always been wrong and slavery will always be wrong, not a universal standard?
How is... murder is wrong, murder has always been wrong and murder will always be wrong, not a universal standard?
How is... adultery is wrong, adultery has always been wrong and adultery will always be wrong, not a universal standard?

You keep trying to argue against universal truth by using morally relativistic examples. Of course those example don't prove universal truth. How can they? They are examples of moral relativism.

Those aren't universal standards; they are absolute standards. Two different things. I never suggested that there are not absolutes, only not universally accepted.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Yes, universal and absolute are one in the same. Universal and relativistic are not one in the same. I see universal/absolute morals as objective truths which are constant; unchanging. I see relativistic morals as subjective truths which can and do change on the subjective whims of man.

 

[Boss]

You said it yourself - the theories of quantum mechanics can be expressed as mathematical equations. God cannot. You keep talking about quantum physics as if it is based solely on faith, with no evidence, but the evidence is in the math. Show me the math of divinity, and I will be the first to change my mind.

The evidence isn't in the math, the math predicts it. Just because something can be predicted doesn't mean evidence exists. If that is so, I predict God exists... see how that works?

Just because I can't show you a formula, doesn't mean anything... 150 years ago, no one could show you a quantum physics formula. Although, if the theories are correct, they were likely working regardless of the fact they hadn't yet been theorized and formulas discovered. This is why it's very problematic for me when people say: We know X, therefore, God is nil. X is an unresolved variable, we'll never absolutely have a value for X. Therefore, it can never prove God nil.

 

[Czernobog]

You said it yourself - the theories of quantum mechanics can be expressed as mathematical equations. God cannot. You keep talking about quantum physics as if it is based solely on faith, with no evidence, but the evidence is in the math. Show me the math of divinity, and I will be the first to change my mind.

The evidence isn't in the math, the math predicts it. Just because something can be predicted doesn't mean evidence exists. If that is so, I predict God exists... see how that works?

Can you make that prediction with mathematical certainty?

Just because I can't show you a formula, doesn't mean anything... 150 years ago, no one could show you a quantum physics formula. Although, if the theories are correct, they were likely working regardless of the fact they hadn't yet been theorized and formulas discovered. This is why it's very problematic for me when people say: We know X, therefore, God is nil. X is an unresolved variable, we'll never absolutely have a value for X. Therefore, it can never prove God nil.

Well, I guess that answered that question. 150 years?!?! Really?!?! You guys have had some 2,000 years to come up with something better than, "Because we say so..." So, until there is some sort of objective evidence to the contrary, I will stay on the neutral null position of "There is no God".

 

[ding]

"Natural law (lat. ius naturale, lex naturalis) is a philosophy that certain rights or values are inherent by virtue of human nature and can be universally understood through human reason. Historically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze both social and personal human nature to deduce binding rules of moral behavior. The law of nature, as it is determined by nature, is universal.[1]"

Natural law - Wikipedia

 

[ding]

You said it yourself - the theories of quantum mechanics can be expressed as mathematical equations. God cannot. You keep talking about quantum physics as if it is based solely on faith, with no evidence, but the evidence is in the math. Show me the math of divinity, and I will be the first to change my mind.

The evidence isn't in the math, the math predicts it. Just because something can be predicted doesn't mean evidence exists. If that is so, I predict God exists... see how that works?

Can you make that prediction with mathematical certainty?

Just because I can't show you a formula, doesn't mean anything... 150 years ago, no one could show you a quantum physics formula. Although, if the theories are correct, they were likely working regardless of the fact they hadn't yet been theorized and formulas discovered. This is why it's very problematic for me when people say: We know X, therefore, God is nil. X is an unresolved variable, we'll never absolutely have a value for X. Therefore, it can never prove God nil.

Well, I guess that answered that question. 150 years?!?! Really?!?! You guys have had some 2,000 years to come up with something better than, "Because we say so..." So, until there is some sort of objective evidence to the contrary, I will stay on the neutral null position of "There is no God".

Do you have proof that there is no God?

 

[BreezeWood]

You said it yourself - the theories of quantum mechanics can be expressed as mathematical equations. God cannot. You keep talking about quantum physics as if it is based solely on faith, with no evidence, but the evidence is in the math. Show me the math of divinity, and I will be the first to change my mind.

The evidence isn't in the math, the math predicts it. Just because something can be predicted doesn't mean evidence exists. If that is so, I predict God exists... see how that works?

Just because I can't show you a formula, doesn't mean anything... 150 years ago, no one could show you a quantum physics formula. Although, if the theories are correct, they were likely working regardless of the fact they hadn't yet been theorized and formulas discovered. This is why it's very problematic for me when people say: We know X, therefore, God is nil. X is an unresolved variable, we'll never absolutely have a value for X. Therefore, it can never prove God nil.

.

We know X, therefore, God is nil. X is an unresolved variable, we'll never absolutely have a value for X. Therefore, it can never prove God nil.

there actually is very little in the universe for an Almighty than what is found on Garden Earth which exists within millions of light years of empty space and lifeless debrie, beyond Earth nil more than excels in existence.

X can prove a lack of presence where there is none.

and where certain text are lies.

.

 

[Czernobog]

You said it yourself - the theories of quantum mechanics can be expressed as mathematical equations. God cannot. You keep talking about quantum physics as if it is based solely on faith, with no evidence, but the evidence is in the math. Show me the math of divinity, and I will be the first to change my mind.

The evidence isn't in the math, the math predicts it. Just because something can be predicted doesn't mean evidence exists. If that is so, I predict God exists... see how that works?

Can you make that prediction with mathematical certainty?

Just because I can't show you a formula, doesn't mean anything... 150 years ago, no one could show you a quantum physics formula. Although, if the theories are correct, they were likely working regardless of the fact they hadn't yet been theorized and formulas discovered. This is why it's very problematic for me when people say: We know X, therefore, God is nil. X is an unresolved variable, we'll never absolutely have a value for X. Therefore, it can never prove God nil.

Well, I guess that answered that question. 150 years?!?! Really?!?! You guys have had some 2,000 years to come up with something better than, "Because we say so..." So, until there is some sort of objective evidence to the contrary, I will stay on the neutral null position of "There is no God".

Do you have proof that there is no God?

Coming late to the party. I don't need proof. The way hypothesis testing works is that when one proposes the hypnosis that "X exists", in order to avoid confirmation bias, one does not start with the affirmative position of "X exists"; rather one starts from the neutral null position of "X does NOT exist" and proceeds to look for evidence to prove the existence of "X".

In this case, the null position is God does not exist. It is up to the theists to provide the evidence to the contrary. One does not prove nonexistence. Nonexistence is presumed, unless proven otherwise.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[ding]

You said it yourself - the theories of quantum mechanics can be expressed as mathematical equations. God cannot. You keep talking about quantum physics as if it is based solely on faith, with no evidence, but the evidence is in the math. Show me the math of divinity, and I will be the first to change my mind.

The evidence isn't in the math, the math predicts it. Just because something can be predicted doesn't mean evidence exists. If that is so, I predict God exists... see how that works?

Can you make that prediction with mathematical certainty?

Just because I can't show you a formula, doesn't mean anything... 150 years ago, no one could show you a quantum physics formula. Although, if the theories are correct, they were likely working regardless of the fact they hadn't yet been theorized and formulas discovered. This is why it's very problematic for me when people say: We know X, therefore, God is nil. X is an unresolved variable, we'll never absolutely have a value for X. Therefore, it can never prove God nil.

Well, I guess that answered that question. 150 years?!?! Really?!?! You guys have had some 2,000 years to come up with something better than, "Because we say so..." So, until there is some sort of objective evidence to the contrary, I will stay on the neutral null position of "There is no God".

Do you have proof that there is no God?

Coming late to the party. I don't need proof. The way hypothesis testing works is that when one proposes the hypnosis that "X exists", in order to avoid confirmation bias, one does not start with the affirmative position of "X exists"; rather one starts from the neutral null position of "X does NOT exist" and proceeds to look for evidence to prove the existence of "X".

In this case, the null position is God does not exist. It is up to the theists to provide the evidence to the contrary. One does not prove nonexistence. Nonexistence is presumed, unless proven otherwise.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Of course you need proof. Otherwise you are taking it on faith.