Dr Rick

The same thing that would be wrong with asserting the Earth is flat; it's possible, but the overwhelming evidence is that this is not the case. It's possible that a donkey or serpent might be able to speak, but the overwhelming evidence, such as their lack of cranial speech centers and vocal cords, is that they can't.

There is no reliable evidence that donkeys or serpents can talk, so it is not rational to assume that they can. If you assert that they might be able to, you are the one making the affirmative claim and so must support it with reliable evidence. Merely asserting that something is possible is a poor argument because possibilities are infinite, but actual events and things are not.

There is no reliable evidence that gods exist, so it is not rational to assume that they do, either. You assert that they do, you are the one making the affirmative claim, and so you must support it with reliable evidence or continue to have your claim rejected.

No, that is not what he said. You are the one that asserts that it is the word of a god, but without reliable evidence that it is or that gods even exist, there is no rational reason to accept your claim.

You've wound yourself into a contradiction on this thread; you make this unsubstantiated claim and then assert that it all may be cast aside by an omnipotent god. In your worldview, regardless of what you have observed in the past, today you might encounter a talking snake, wine may flow from your faucet, and the Sun may stop moving across the sky.

Rick

Eikonoklast

Could you expound upon your answer a bit more? I was hoping for a little more than a "yes" or a "no". How AND WHY is god's morality, from god's point of view, absolute and not subjective and arbitrary?

"Value" presupposes a "valuer". They are inextricably linked Thus, "value" can only be said to exist to the extent that life exists. For instance, a rock cannot have values.




I'm not sure that such animals can possess "values".



If you are to uphold values, the source of morals, you must uphold life, the source of all values, without which there would be no other values. If you do not uphold life, then you do not uphold values, and thus have nothing to say in the matter as you are not a possessor of values.




I already answered this in my previous post with:

Interestingly enough, I could point to theology and the hopes of an afterlife as a psychological drive to extend the ultimate value of life beyond its capacity.

Keith

You've misunderstood me. We are observing exactly the same reality. Reality is objectively meaningful though not exhaustively comprehensible to us humans. Atheists, like Christians, are also able to make sense out of reality to a high degree. Atheists understand concepts like human rights, justice, morality, and so on, because every human is made in God's image and God has instilled the knowledge of him in all of us. God has created the universe such a way that no one can observe a fact of any kind that doesn't directly or indirectly point to him.

But to the extent atheists are able to EXPLAIN things, and MAKE SENSE of reality, they must borrow from outside of their worldview, the concepts that are required to make sense of reality. Atheists aren't able to make sense of the abstract universals which they use and take for granted in everyday life.

For example, atheists, like all humans, argue as though abstract universals exist. They argue as though there is an ultimate standard that exists by which they can claim that they are objectively "right" and their opponent is "wrong". This, of course, is inconsistent with the atheist's own perpective because without God, who's authority does one appeal to? If there is no ultimate authority, no one's truth claims can carry any more force than any one else's.

Keith

Keith

I don't need to demonstrate it. The bible is self-authenticating. It provides its own internal proof that it is God's word. If you read the bible and don't want to believe its claims, that is your choice. If you want to believe that you will not be harmed by jumping off a three hundred foot bridge without a cord or chute, this too, is your choice.

Keith

Keith

But someone like Saddam has his subjective moral framework. His subjective morality tells him that gassing the Kurds is the highest moral righteousness that he could possibly do. Who is (morally) the most correct?

Keith

Keith

Yes, I am subject to all of God's moral commands, and he will eventually judge me for what I've done. No, God couldn't have made moral standards that are different. Even God is "limited" by his own nature. Since it is God's nature to be perfectly good, holy, just, righteous, loving, etc., his morality will have to be what it must be. It is not possible for God to oppose himself.

Keith

Keith

Who says the evidence is "overwhelming" that the earth is not flat, that serpents and donkeys can't talk? I agree with your conclusion that the earth is not flat, serpents and donkeys are not generally talkers and so forth, but who, or what is the standard for when the evidence is overwhelming? You are arguing as though some ultimate objective standard exists.

Keith

Keith

You say"reliable evidence." What, or who's, standard should be used for deciding which body of evidence (your vs mine) is more reliable?

Keith

Dr Rick

With comments like this:
...definitely not yours.

Rick

hinduwoman

I disagree. The believers are not content simply to worship gods: they insist on inflicting their gods on us, declare that they have sets of laws from gods which everyone else must follow, and genrally make life painful for those who refuses to believe in their myths.
That is why atheists are so heavily involved in debates about whether gods exist.