Philosoft

I don't understand. First you say the Bible is "self-authenticating," that it has "internal proof" of its truth. Now you tell me it "opens itself up to refutation..." by which I assume you mean, its claims are verified or not by comparing them to reality. This is actually external verification - comparing the Bible to another known standard. If the Bible was self-authenticating, presumably it would be true regardless of its perceived adherence to reality.

Now, it really doesn't matter to me which truth account you promote. Just try to avoid changing your argument in the middle.

Keith

No, you haven't demonstrated that murder is objectively immoral. I'm still waiting.

Again, I'll try to answer your question. God's morality can't be subjective in any way because God is reality...the one, necessary, ultimate, unchanging, standard for everything. By definition, no higher authority of any kind exists, or could exist.

God's moral will, laws, and commands all derive their value from God's perfectly holy nature. There is nothing higher, more righteous, or more ultimate than the one source of every ultimate standard, which is God. He is complete. Without God nothing does, or can, make sense.

Keith

Keith

Internal, external, or both. Are you just playing with semantics here? How can anyone say that the bible can be evaluated without some possibility of verification? Does it make any verifiable claims or not? When I said the bible is self-authenticating, I meant that it is its own witness to its accuracy. It has to be this way because no higher authority exists than God. This being the case, you are able to trust it by its own claims. You can reject it as a bunch of man-made myths if you want. But if you do, it won't be because the biblical evidence is deficient in any way. The bible successfully defends itself every second of every day. You can't match that with ANY of your claims.

Keith

Philosoft

You never asked me to provide any such circumstances; you simply asked who was more morally correct. Obviously, without knowing the circumstances of the potential gassing of the Kurds, I can't answer that.

If the Kurds were Gandhi's descendants and Saddam wanted to build a Saddamland theme park on the land they occupy, I would judge that morally wrong and take whatever steps I could to prevent it.

However, if the Kurds had a stolen nuclear weapon they were planning to detonate in the middle of Baghdad and Saddam wanted to prevent that, it would be much easier to see that as morally justifiable.
I know that I value the lives of other humans. I know that, even if I couldn't come up with a reason why I value others' lives, I would still value others' lives. In fact, I do things and believe things I have no objective reasons to do or believe, other than that I think they probably increase my reproductive fitness somehow. So I guess I don't see the same huge epistemological problems you see.

Keith

"If you do not uphold life, you do not uphold values, and thus have nothing to say in the matter as you are not a possessor of values."

This sounds circular. Are you saying that if Saddam gasses hundreds of people to death he is not a possessor of moral values? How do you know that this is true? Maybe his moral values are just not the same as yours.

Keith

Eikonoklast

Please, I know you know what I mean when I say SUPPORT your assertions instead of simply stating them. Could you give me the courtesy of pointing out what is wrong with what I wrote, instead of just saying that I haven't done what you have asked. It's not hard. PLEASE!



Can you demonstrate how your position differs from that of a Pantheist?



You haven't done anything here besides state that REALITY is objective. Fine then, that's what I say. But you take it one step too far by invoking a CONSCIOUS BEING. If god has a conscious will you cannot prove that the morality that comes from it is anything other than subjective and arbitrary, unless you can show that it actually stems from a value system developed as a result of god's limited nature. In other words, his "ability" to not exist. Unfortunately, your beliefs won't allow you to do that. You have to be able to prove that god necessarily needs a value system. How can that be for a perfect, eternal being?



Perhaps we should get some definitions straight before we proceed. Are you saying morals are derived from the "holy"? Please define "moral" and "holy".

Philosoft

You did when you called the Bible "self-authenticating."

Except it isn't. The Bible just says some things. It's up to the people who read it to determine if it accurately describes reality or not. If it does not accurately describe reality, it's up to the people who read it to determine which one is correct.

I don't understand why you juxtapose these two statements. If the Bible is trustworthy on its own, it should be overwhelmingly obvious. It is not overwhelmingly obvious, which is why we can reject it and also why there is a massive apologetics contingent dedicated to explaining why the Bible does not align with reality.
This is just wrong. Either there was a worldwide flood or there was not. If there was, we should see evidence of said flood. We do not see evidence of said flood, in fact, we see positive evidence that it did not occur. Thus, we are in the aforementioned position of believing either the Bible or reality.

Keith

Why is it taking things one step too far to invoke a conscious being?

Webster's defines pantheism as the belief that:

"God is not a personality and that all laws, forces, and manifestations of the self-existing universe are god."

I'm saying that God is a personality and that he transcends the universe and all its laws, forces, and manifestations.

It is impossible for God to develop a value system. God is unchanging. His values cannot be separated from himself. This is the sense in which I've said God is "limited"....he cannot have or develop anything. He is complete. His values must be consistent with his own unchanging nature. God can't change or conflict with his own nature. It is incoherent to say that God "needs" a value system. God is complete in every way. He needs nothing outside of himself.

Keith

Keith

I thought I was supporting my assertions. Let me know what needs clarification. Sorry I was so late getting back to you on what was wrong with your attempt to defend your reason for saying murder is an objective moral wrong. I often get way behind answering all the responses I get. Again, I'm sorry about this.

Keith

Keith

You know that the bible is accurate in its description of reality. What more do you need?

Keith