onceuponapriori

OK, but they could be sincere, couldn’t they? Is god then forced to accept them?

I don't believe that God is forced to accept them. I believe that he *would* accept them, but only after applying some sort of punishment, if such a punishment is deserved.

So the “objective” moral rule “murder is wrong” is applied according to the situation? Is not necessarily universally applicable?

I think you're playing with words here. I could just as easily say that the moral rule is:

If one were to commit a murder, one would be acting immorally.

Perhaps you'll find a way to make that invalid in some world...

You don’t have to. I think it makes clear the difficulty in claiming a truth as objective or defining any claimed objective truth. It all comes down to two or more people having to agree on a whole string of definitions. It’s impossible to keep subjectivity out of it.

I could grant this, and yet still insist that certain truths are objective. The fact that you, or anyone else, might have difficulty understanding what I am attempting to communicate does not suddenly invalidate an objective truth.

If this discussion is going to lapse into a debate about whether any truth is objective, I'd rather thank you for the time you've taken to speak to me, and move on to another conversation. Perhaps I'll try to explain why I find such views self-stultifying on some other day.

(me)Of course, just because a truth is apprehended by a subjective process, does not preclude that truth's being objective.

(mageth)No, but it makes it impossible to prove its objectiveness.

I could similarily grant this, and yet still have no qualms with believing it to be objective. Whether I can prove any proposition to anyone else has no impact whatsoever on its objectivity.

Well, “brutal rape” a bit of an extreme case. How about if they just differed with you on what might justify a murder, or on whether someone acted intentionally in committing a murder? Or on exactly what “caring for others” entails?

I'm not sure (though I will think about it) which minimum set of moral truths would be apprehended given one's belief in my God. But I've given you at least one.

Making an exclusive claim to the Truth is the height of arrogance, IMO. Not to mention that it tends to lead humankind into all sorts of wars and other bad situations.

Yet every statement you make is a claim to truth (which is, by definition, exclusive).

What’s to preclude them from realizing the error of their ways and honestly accepting god in your afterlife scenario?

Nothing. And God will treat them justly.

Mageth

I think you're playing with words here. I could just as easily say that the moral rule is:

If one were to commit a murder, one would be acting immorally.

Perhaps you'll find a way to make that invalid in some world...

I'm not "playing with words." I'm illustrating the difficulty of determining any such "truth" as objective.

Your modified rule still falls under the trap of objectively defining "murder", and to getting two or more people to agree with it. That's very difficult if not impossible to do.

I could grant this, and yet still insist that certain truths are objective. The fact that you, or anyone else, might have difficulty understanding what I am attempting to communicate does not suddenly invalidate an objective truth.

But that's the key. For a Truth to be considered "objective", it would seem to me that it would have to be clearly understandable as such. If no one can understand your definition of "objective truth", if everyone applies their own subjective understanding of an "objective truth", just how objective is it?

At best, you can claim to have a subjective understanding of a "truth".

If this discussion is going to lapse into a debate about whether any truth is objective, I'd rather thank you for the time you've taken to speak to me, and move on to another conversation. Perhaps I'll try to explain why I find such views self-stultifying on some other day.

Well, I'm sorry if the hard questions are frustrating you.

Whether any truth is truly objective or not is besides the point. The point is, one cannot claim objective knowledge of such a truth, because one has to arrive at, and communicate, what one "knows" subjectively.

I could similarily grant this, and yet still have no qualms with believing it to be objective. Whether I can prove any proposition to anyone else has no impact whatsoever on its objectivity.

Coming to believe a proposition to be objective, and some other proposition to not be objective, is in itself a subjective process. Once again, a proposition that cannot be established to be objective, and that can't be clearly defined and understood by two or more people objectively, can't be touted as an "objective truth."

The most you can claim is, as you yourself said, you believe a truth to be objective. You can't claim it to be objective.

Yet every statement you make is a claim to truth (which is, by definition, exclusive).

Umm, no, you're wrong on that. I'm not the one claiming any objective truths, nor am I claiming any exclusive truths. In fact, I'm not really making any truth claims at all. I understand that my understanding is subjective, and do not claim to know the truth about any proposition.

The Truth you claim, and that I alluded to, is your particular understanding of God and Religion, which you claim to be True, even to excluding other people's interpretation of the same God and religion. I make no such claim.

My Atheism is not a truth claim, it's merely a statement of my lack of belief in God. I don't claim that God doesn't exist. Perhaps a god does exist, but if one does, there's not enough evidence for me to justify belief in it. I don't claim to know the truth on this matter, or any such non-objectively-knowable proposition. And in reality, I don't claim to know the truth on any proposition. Everything is subject to doubt and question in my book.

onceuponapriori

And here is where I decline to discuss this topic with you further.

You can make whatever assumptions regarding "hard questions" and "frustration" that you'd like. I find it most difficult to communicate with someone who claims (that the truth of the matter is) that they make no truth claims.

But again, I appreciate your amiable disposition and sincerely enjoyed our conversation until this point. Perhaps we can engage on other topics of mutual interest in the future.

If you'd like, you can have the last word (though I didn't respond to much that you said anyways).

Mageth

My only "last words" are that instead of "hard questions" I should have said "hard questioning" or "persistent questioning". Actually, I probably shouldn't have made that statement at all. Other than that, I've enjoyed our discourse as well, and if you stick around I'm sure we can have a go again sometimes.

theophilus

What's "problematic" for this Christian is people misrepresenting what the Bible teaches.
No one, not even babies, are damned because they reject the gospel. They [i]remain[/] under judgement which is the consequence for the sin which inhabits the heart of every person ever born, i.e., they aren't saved.

theophilus

Do you make it a practice of answering for other people? I'm still waiting for an answer from Majody.

Mageth

Do you make it a practice of answering for other people? I'm still waiting for an answer from Majody.

And Majody's waiting to hear an answer from you. He/she asked first, after all.

And when you posted:

I'm always fascinated when someone with "questions about God" go to people who don't believe in God for answers. It's a little like asking a Democrat to explain the Republican position.

you were, by virtue of posting this on a public forum, inciting input from anyone, including me.

If you don't like the fact that I pointed out the obvious, that by posting here Majody was asking the questions to both atheists and theists, including you, and that your answer "the answers are in the bible; look it up or ask a theist" is inadequate, too bad. Don't whine about it.

In the future, if you don't want to get answers from others on this board, send a PM.

Cross Examiner

Beset on all sides by atheists and agnostics! If I wander into infidels.org with a name like Billy Graham is cool I should not be surprised to get mugged. I'll try to answer you, Mageth and Just_An_Atheist, fortunately your's and another's overlap in many places. Brevity will be requisite nonetheless.

Where is this direct evidence for an impersonal ever-existant universe capable of creation so marvelous as to suggest design? Just because I see evidence of the aardvark does not mean I can ascribe to it all sorts of wonderful traits that cannot be observed...

Everything has always existed? So, matter-energy, time-space; the universe are all eternal, all cause-less? As Albert Einstein said:
scientists live by their faith in causation, and the chain of cause and effect.
So, I ask you, what caused the universe? Alternatively, to what Cosmological model do you subscribe (e.g. Steady-State, Oscillating, Big-Bang Inflationary/Vaccum Fluctuation etc.)? Choose wisely my friend.

I found Naland to be less than ubiquitous on the web, can you give me a link? A cliff's notes version even; I'm chained to an office like most of you, web is most expedient n'est-ce pas?

I read alot of it. I've objected early and often so far with good reason. I'll not respond here, now. Thanks for the source.

A willingness of a cause's adherents to die for said cause does not validate that cause. Agreed. I hardly think despondent Arabs wanting to go out with a bang equate to the myriad Christian martyrs, from every people-group under the Sun, tortured to death at the hands of the Romans and other principalities. Particularly those who witnessed the Resurrection first-hand. 9 of the original 12 men who saw first were executed, not for a "cause" so much as a refusal to deny they witnessed a man die and brought subsequently back to life. There is no corellation in all of history. How many staked their lives on the observation of Osiris' resurrection? This is where history delineates from myth.

OK. But that was not what we were talking about. In the original context, [para] I wrote that man's natural proclivity towards seeking something greater than himself was, to me, evidentiary of something else beyond man existing, among other sub-points. Talk about digression.

I could respond to this in depth, but I'll not. Possibility versus plausibility. That's all. You still haven't read the Greenleaf link yet you want me to research all your infidels.org links? C'mon now.

Perfect, yep. No death of any type. Soul, body, spirit fully eternal; you didn't know you were made in the image of God, a trinity of sorts yourself? Yes, you are multi-faceted. Free-will makes no one sin, certainly makes it possible though. As the Bible states, we'll be a completed work in eternity, conformed to the image of Christ as He was in His resurrected body. As such, we'll not sin there as He did not here, with free-will intact even.

Surveyed it. As an acid test of general acceptance, an indicator of believability, I searched for a random personnage, Zulis, on the web. I found next to nothing. Interesting. Must not have been an impactful personnage. A list mythological personnages, religious men etc. All fantastic claims, no validation. Nothing approaching the historiocity of the Gospels. So far I'm dissapointed by the lack of poignancy of your sources. Seems more like you dumped a mish-mash of speculatory fancy on me and want me to fetch the bone. All from the same domain too; infidels.org, the source for all things unfaithful I suppose.

And Van Gogh died unknown and penniless. Can you afford one of his works now? The "silly stories" as you call them have mountains of archaelogical and historical support. You can deny there ever was a people called the Jews if you want to bad enough. Some people deny the holocaust, which, conveniently enough, serves their preconceived ideology.

Ever hear of conspiracy-theory? Trust no one over 30! The truth is out there! I doubt the human conscience is explained by a plot to "condition" the peoples of the Earth. Even if you don't think it's a plot so much as a need to create societal norms, where did the impetus for that come from? Did someone reason his way into the necessity of a conscience, as a program for society's good and it just spread to every tribe and tongue? I'll take the in-born argument. Animals have empathetic abilities now?

My conscience is not Hammurabi's code. People's conscience is not as specific as you infer. Murder is universally-bad. Conscience is the still-small voice of God saying, "don't kill your brother Cain!" It also says, "look around you! You're not an accident." Not that we listen when our heart is fixed upon some self-gratifying desire. Our free-will trumps our conscience consistently.

OK. I'll try to get to the next guy a bit later. Thanks for your patience all.

Jobar

BGiC, I think you need to peruse our Biblical Criticism & Archaeology forum. Many of the statements you have made in your last several posts concerning historical fact are incorrect; modern scholarship does *not* conclude that, for instance, "9 of the original 12 men who saw first were executed".

This forum, EoG, is aimed pretty exclusively at philosophical/theological arguments for or against the reality of god(s), while the thrust of your posts is largely Christian Apologetics.

I'm not trying to chase you away; quite the contrary, we have a dearth of well-spoken believers here. However, this discussion ought to be taking place in either BC&A or our General Religious Discussions forum. Jobar, moderator.

Cross Examiner

Hello again Just_An_Atheist, hopefully all is well with you. OK. So I rush-educated myself on the philosphical basics, though I will be no match for you, a philospher of religion in training , I'll try and answer your post anyway.

I agree with the above. I think that accurately describes our ability. I find myself defining free-will in the simplest, most common-sensical way, which is a foundation for libertarianism, which I identify with most between itself, hard determinism and soft determinism. I assume compatibilism is another term for soft determinism? I'm trying to iron-out these definitions so we are not misunderstanding each other.

As far as I can see, Evangelicals cannot stand as hard determinists though they need not be compatibalists, as you infer at line 1 in the above. If I agreed with the compatibilist definition of free-will, which I necessarily do not, I would still fail to see the dilemma as you presented. I understand how causailty and irrestible forces, or urges, are necessary for hard determinism to stand though in your hypothetical, God would be predetermining everyone's fate for the positive rather than the negative, which still makes us puppets despite the happier outcome, notwithstanding, which I reject based upon my understanding of Scripture. I see self-determinism as one of God's chief aims for man. I reject that free-will is illusionary though I understand the necessity for the atheist to believe against it.

I don't follow the argument directly above but I would not defend it anyway since I assume incompatibilism is the opposite of compatiblism, which I nearly identify with.
It seems that your deduction that free-will in nonsense is premised upon a false dichotomy. That is to say, I think the issue of free-will vs. causality transcends only compatibilism and incompatiblism. Even accepting your dichotomy I do not think free-will fails since I do not agree that compatibilism, or by extension libertarianism, is defeated in your first example. Can you expound on your first point further?

Again, I say this boils down to standpoint and temporality. From God's perspective, everyone who believes is already recorded in the "Lamb's book of Life". Though from my standpoint, you can still decide as long as you breathe. I reiterate that I do not see compatibilism as precluded. If we are not discussing God and free-will, what are we discussing? For the sake of argument, the existence of God and free-will, we must assume God is, otherwise, all this is moot. So, God's typical attributes are not up for debate, are they? Did you want to go that way also? If we are discussing free-will and determinism then empiricism must take a back seat necessarily and so the existence of God, or his attributes, should not be challenged in the context of this discussion. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

In the context of our discussion, I am not trying to establish the God of Christianity. I do not concede that God and an eternal universe are equally probably, just that neither can be established emprically, thus requiring faith in one or the other as the first cause. If you think an eternal universe is probable, then to which model of Cosmology do you prescribe?

I now understand your counter-assertion though I do not see how my original assertion is falsified by empirical evidence. Can you share this falsifying evidence? Much thanks.

-Josh