Shadowy Man

Do you eat shellfish?

Keith

Why ask?

Keith

Keith

You will not find any evidence that you do not want to find. The bible is trustworthy any way you want to evaluate it. This is objectively true. Thousands of atheists have read the bible hoping to find errors and inconsistencies in it. A very large number of them have, by God's grace, become Christians as a result of trying to refute the bible. I know the process well--I was just such an atheist. The harder I tried to disprove the bible, the stronger the bible seemed to become. I fought with God and he won. Atheism is absolutely futile. God calls unbelievers "fools"

Keith

Philosoft

Ok. I can see our discussion has nearly run its course. Unless, perhaps you have something else to offer that is not a total fabrication?
Good night, old bean.

Keith

Yes. Morality is derived from the objectively holy nature of God, who is the one necessary, unchanging, personal, and ultimate purpose and being.

I'll use Webster's dictionary for the definitions:

Moral- relating to, dealing with, or capable of making the distinction between right and wrong in conduct.

Holy- Spiritually perfect or pure; untainted by evil or sin; sinless.

Keith

Shadowy Man

Because according to the Bible, eating shellfish is an abomination, something terribly immoral. A more accurate description of reality I am hard-pressed to find.

Luiseach

I hope you don't mind me jumping in with a quick question that I would appreciate hearing an answer to.

If, as you say, morality derives from God, and we decide to do 'right' as opposed to 'wrong' because God exists, then is that the only reason we would decide to do 'right'? In other words, do we do 'right' only because we believe in God? Or are other incentives involved besides God?

Eikonoklast

It IS impossible for god to develop a value system. I contend that god can't even possess a value system whatsoever. He has absolutely no needs, is immortal, and unchanging. There is no necessity for value. There would not even be a concept of value to such a thing. God would be equivalent to a conscious rock, with no goals, values, or morals. As you said, it would be complete in and of itself, unnaffected by anything else.


This is applicable to man. Man, however, can possess value because he faces death. Man can choose among alternatives that will continue his life, the ultimate value, and so act to obtain that value. God does not face the predicament of existence/non-existence, and so is not in need of a value system.

I will also posit that your moral system, derived from god, is actually a psychological attempt to extend the ultimate value of life beyond its capacity. You, as all of us do, face ultimate annihalation. Your mind won't allow you to think that, so it starts grasping at straws in a vain hope to prevent that from happening. What underlies your erroneous views psychologically, is the struggle for survival.


"I wanna live, I don't wanna die. That's the whole meaning of life: not dying! I figured that shit out by myself in the third grade." - George Carlin.

...and thus is not in need of a value system.



Correct. Given this, a system of values is not applicable to such a being.

Keith

Well, that would be your opinion wouldn't it?

Keith

Eikonoklast

Okay. I need you to demonstrate the objective qualities of the "holy nature of God" and how it is related to morality.

I'd also like to amend your definition of "moral". Your definition seems to pertain to "morals". I would say what is "moral" is choosing what is "right". Immoral is choosing what is "wrong".

This, however presents a problem. My definition of what is "right" is that that upholds and extends life. "Wrong" would be just the opposite.

You on the other hand will probably define "right" as that in accordance with god's will, and "wrong" as that that is not in accordance with god's will. This is circular reasoning, and amounts to: "God is moral because God is moral."