Keith

I haven't said that non-Christians lack a worldview. You claim that little I've said makes any sense. How can this statement be objectively true if God doesn't exist? Are you the ultimate standard for what is/isn't sensible to believe? If not, who is? After you answer these questions, I'll be happy to continue defending my worldview by answering your questions. I think its about time that the question I've been asking about who/what is the standard for deciding what is/isn't reasonable to believe needs to be answered.

Keith

Keith

I'm not really into self-analysis very much. I am trying to consider other viewpoints, but all viewpoints are merely individual opinions with no valid truth status if God doesn't exist.

Keith

Keith

Hi, James, and wellcome! You admit that I have at least established the latter (God is an expert on the subject). How could I establish that unless he also exists?

Keith

Shadowy Man

The same way that one can establish Sherlock Holmes as an expert in deductive reasoning.

Keith

How about gravity, can we observe gravity? No, we can't. We know gravity is real because of the observable effects it produces all around us. Its effects on everything around us makes it too obvious to reasonably deny its existence.

Keith

Keith

No offense taken. What I mean by "self-authenticating" is that the bible doesn't (and can't) appeal to other authorities for confirmation. There is no authority higher than God. You won't find a reference section in the back of it referring you to Kant, Darwin, Gould, or Hume.

The bible makes thousands of assertions that are verifiable. Although many of the claims made in the bible have not yet been verified, an immense body of its claims have been verified. The problems unbelievers have had with God and the bible never had anything to do with insufficient evidence.

I don't want to get off my topic with a discussion on the accuracy of the Quran, but I can tell you that its problems are enormous and well documented. For further information on these problems I recommend the book "Islam Revealed" by Dr. Anis Shorrosh.

Keith

Keith

Answers to your questions...please do not take offense:

1. Because you view yourself as ultimate in matters of morality. Unregenerate humans do this, while a saved individual trusts that God's reasons for bring on a massive flood, for example, are perfectly good, just, and morally right.

2. "Suddenly decide" implies that God changes, or at least thinks within the confines of a spacio-temporal universe. God transcends spacetime. So, the idea only seems puzzling when one assumes that God is confined and limited within the bounds of spacetime.

3. God can't need morals, and he can't need anything outside of himself. He is the standard of morality by his very nature. He can't be different than his nature.

4. Explained in my last post to you.

5. Because reality will reflect its source. God is reality and God is absolute meaning. Nothing can have objective and knowable meaning without God.

6. The question itself would be invalid and unanswerable if no clear, obvious, knowable meaning existed. To ask about meaning assumes meaning.

7. God does not require meaning, God is the source of meaning. God and meaning can't be separated from each other. Since God is the source of meaning, nothing can be objectively sensible or understandable without God.

8a. No, I don't describe subjective morality as true morality. And I am claiming that on the basis of what little we know, there is a morally right choice that we know, understand, and are obligated to follow.

8b. This has already been explained. In moral matters, we are held to a moral standard. It is impossible for humans to be all-knowing. We sin when we make a choice other than that which we understand to be most morally right.

Keith

Sue Sponte

Because it is true. You make little sense. I don't mean that as a personal attack, but simply that what you say makes little sense to me.

Yes, I am, for me. As you are for you.

Having done so, please now explain why most people who don't share your theistic beliefs act morally, respecting and not harming others. Your view that morality only comes from following your god cannot logically account for this. It is a non sequitor.

It's been answered repeatedly. You simply choose not to accept the answer. The standard for reasonable is chosen by each individual. That is why people act and view things differently. There isn't a cosmic normality that guides all behavior.

And how that standard is developed is as individual as the standards that result. My "standards" are a combination of many things, from the teachings of my parents, teachers, friends and family, knowledge gained from numerous sources (study, observation, experience, etc.), my own feelings on what is right and wrong, and every other aspect of life that has formed the person I am. The answer is the same for you, just that the "teachings" that you have accepted lead you to believe that the answer is the same for all. It isn't.

It is fairly evident that self-analysis is not a focus of yours. And I believe you are deluding yourself when you state that you are trying to consider other viewpoints, because you aren't. You are defending a position. Your quote demonstrates as much, as you have concluded that there is no valid opinion in the absence of your god. Thus, you cannot possibly consider other viewpoints. As a result, you can't possibly give meaningful consideration to what I've just written.

Giorgia

:notworthy :notworthy Welcome!!!!

I just finished reading about half your posts in various threads and I'm still chuckling!!!

IMHO, you've got a terrific sense of humor [as in "That christian IS a nutball with nuclear weapons." --your quip about Bush] and I really like your straightforward logic as well!

I hope to "see you around" often!
__________________
I'm moving to a small town and starting a subliminal "intentional community" there; if you're sick of noise, contact me.

Sue Sponte

Giorgia: