Dtruthspeaker:

But we all know that in the eye of criminals, Law and Just is, is unfair because criminals desire a state where they commit crimes and consume the fruits of their crimes yet no one punishing them for it, which is why they hate God and speak lies and everything evil against Him.

chryssanthe:
The two arguments for 1) human morality vs god morality i recall are:

#1 God is, per definition, good.
Their argument is based on the assumption that he is ultimately perfect. A perfect thing cant be wrong, and thats the argument to shut down any further discussion.
Of course the creator of everything could something else but all-benevolent, but i think many (Abrahamic) theists are fully aware of the problems with their gods morality and actions (genocide, rape, incest, death for collecting sticks on the wrong day, etc), and the impossibility to defend any of this, thus the extension from all powerful to benevolent. Of course its only a variation of #2

chryssanthe:

And here, ladies and gentlemen, you have the argument of: "God is good, you are evil. Stfu!". This time without any further backup. He not even tried to argue why his good is good. Just some baseless claims.

chryssanthe:
As i predicted, he didnt even try to rehabilitate his gods untenable position. His approach is to tear the opponents position down, by poisoning the well. No attempt of rational discourse, just baseless claims.
How very pathetic!

Dtruthspeaker:


Back up is not given to things that are commonly seen and known, even if you ignore that knowledge.

As I have always said, atheists are blind and almost never see what is in front of them, especially criminal atheists

AuthenticKing:

Lol. My statement was based on fact that your Bible borrowed from the codes of Ur-Narmu, Hammurabi, Eshuanna and other codes that existed before it and the Americans supposedly based their morality on this Bible.
Those codes are also verifiable just like the Romans too and of course, the Romans had gods before your God appeared.

Judas1X:

[b]If it was commonly seen and known, then arguments about its existence wouldn't exist. Unless you can prove me wrong by showing me anywhere you see people arguing about the existence of the sun?

Dtruthspeaker:


No recent example here in nairaland so here is one.

A fully loaded bus printed G.A.M.seen along Lagos-Ibadan express way. And someone's says that bus reminds me of Warri, hmm yummy. I won go Warri.

Then one idiot would then ask how you take know say that bus dey go Warri? .

Judas1X:

What is this trash?

I asked where you've seen people arguing about the sun and look at your response. Is this not "Change Of Post™", hmmmm?

Dtruthspeaker:


And I did more than show you what I saw! I showed you the case I saw.

Everybody can now see that you cannot read. Hahahahahaha . Abeg what was the question again? The world bears me witness to your intellectual handicap

Judas1X:

If it was commonly seen and known, then arguments about its existence wouldn't exist. Unless you can prove me wrong by showing me anywhere you see people arguing about the existence of the sun?

Judas1X:

Everybody can now see that you cannot read. Hahahahahaha . Abeg what was the question again? The world bears me witness to your intellectual handicap

Dtruthspeaker:


And our word doth bear me witness that I did verily answer you.

"If it was commonly seen and known, then arguments about its existence wouldn't exist. Unless you can prove me wrong by showing me anywhere you see people arguing about the existence of "commonly seen and known," (like) the sun?

And the bus bearing G.A.M is as the sun.

So we've established that you also don't know the meaning of "obvious" . It is obvious that the vehicle is a bus. What is not obvious is where it's headed. You may speculate based on certain things, but you can't know for certain

AuthenticKing:

You said the issue of man making laws has been obliterated and I insisted that it hasn't, man makes laws.

You said we can look beyond man and that's where the Bible and God takes the lead and I insisted the both are irrelevant since they appeared after existing laws.

Judas1X:

First of all. Don't ever edit my posts in your miserable life. I never used a simile in my post...

Judas1X:

I was specific about the existence of the sun. Look at you twisting my words to create a different question for yourself.

Judas1X:

Second, your post was about disagreements about where the bus was headed, not the existence of the bus (object)

Judas1X:

So we've established that you also don't know the meaning of "obvious" . It is obvious that the vehicle is a bus. What is not obvious is where it's headed. You may speculate based on certain things, but you can't know for certain

AuthenticKing:

Yen yen yen, the Bible is a book of fictions, legends, plagiarism and of course, some history. Your Bible issa copycat, simple!

AuthenticKing:

Lol lol lol. You're making this statement based on your strong beliefs that the Bible is the true word of God but 'thank God' your Bible came after these existing laws so your assumption is completely false.

AuthenticKing:

Yen yen yen, I've observed you keenly on this platform, you're an expert rubbing your beliefs on people and you use all sorts of devices to achieve that, by sounding authoritarian and not just insulting them but cursing them with the name of your God, of course you also try to engage in healthy arguments sometimes but you do more of the authoritarian and cursing tactic.
But let me give you a very simplistic analogy on how truth works, e.g. 1 + 1 = 2, it's a universal truth and remains the same all round the world, you can't argue against it and no one resorts to cursing others who don't agree with it, they simply show them proof on why it is so but you know one problem with your "truth" (there are so many of them), there's no raw evidence of it

Dtruthspeaker:


As reported.

Where it is also a situation of the Bible simple giving it's own report of the statutus quo like a new newspaper, joining the other newspapers to give reports of events.

Dtruthspeaker:

And the Bible is a compilation of reports which could also have come earlier than the Hammurabi and co, especially as Ur, the city Ur Nammu appropriated to himself, is also captured in the Bible and put in a position where we see that it is what we would call an early period.

But, the Bible went further back than It and Ur-Nammu, which the records also confirm that all the places and societies we call countries and states today all started with people coming together and claiming the land they see under their feet, as the Bible had reported.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/asia-and-africa/ancient-history-middle-east/ur&ved=2ahUKEwic3dT7otL6AhUSWBoKHWquDjYQFnoECCwQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2fLTOPTkQWPPCJy3N5SsEm

So, you see the Bible still leads in history and Natural Law history and in man manufacturing their own law (legal) history.

Dtruthspeaker:


The issue is the history of Law morality and we have both arrived at the place where man is seen to have made law (legal) for the first time.

And we see that Law was still above man even before he made his legal. So man, creating legal is now no longer in issue. And it is now time to look at records which goes beyond this point, which is where the Bible and God takes lead.

So, you are free to bring any good evidence which we can reasonably examine together, in comparison to the Bible.

Dtruthspeaker:


Now you are repeating yourself, means you can not counter.

Dtruthspeaker:

Immaterial as long as this now shows that you have no reasonable counter.

Dtruthspeaker:

Go look again I only curse people who curse God. But if the issue stays on a matter of position, I simply make my point and leave. Only returning to point out flaws and errors in their further argument if necessary.

Dtruthspeaker:


As I have always said, atheists are blind and almost never see what is in front of them, especially criminal atheists

Dtruthspeaker:

And I am happy you used "1 +1 =2 all over the world" exactly as I said Law aka Morals is all over the world and some of your people disagreed, and I answered them, and not a single curse was there, even when some insulted me.(and you did not tell them that it is wrong to insult me o)

Wilgrea7:
2) The existence of objective moral laws

Objective morality is something theists seem to believe in, which is fine.

However, the issue I have with theists here, is their inability to prove that the objective moral values, if they exist, are indeed coming from their specific God, and not another one. That somehow, the God who they serve, is indeed the arbiter of good and evil, and therefore the source of objective moral values.

For example, a Muslim can say it is wrong to eat pork, while a Christian can say it is right to do so. (please note: This is an example to prove a point, and should not be taken as an accurate representation of either faith).

Both of them believe in a God, who happens to be the the source of objective moral values. For the Christian, eating pork is objectively Ok, while to the muslim, it is objectively wrong. However, everyone knows that isn't how the word "objective" works.

At the end of the day, they are both subjective. Subjective in the sense that the definitions of right and wrong have shifted from personal opinion among different humans, to personal opinion among different gods.

Until the theist can prove that whatever God they serve is indeed the source of objective morality, their claims to any sort of objective moral truth is nonetheless subjective.

The laws given by the god of the bible, quran, vedas or any other religious text CANNOT be taken as objective, until the believer of the respective faith can show that their specific God, as described in their book, is indeed the creator of the universe, and hence, the source of objective moral laws.

Of course, this doesn't in any way mean we need to adhere to them, as explained in my earlier post, but it does get us a step closer to something.

Wilgrea7:
1) Human morality vs God's morality

It is commonly said, that if a God exists, then it would be the arbiter of good and evil, and therefore, we can only be good by aligning ourselves with its definition of good, and any deviation from that, would be evil.

For this position to make sense, anything, and I mean, ANYTHING, can be considered good, as long as a God says so. And even if we humans see something as subjectively good, that thing would not be objectively good except it is in line with what a God sets as good.

Now, on to my example. This was given to me by a brilliant Christian here, by the name of TenQ. He made reference to a toilet owner, and the germs of a toilet.

If I, the toilet owner, decides to disinfect my toilet, I will be killing millions of bacteria. To me, disinfecting my toilet is good. To the bacteria, it is clearly bad. But assuming I'm the arbiter of good and evil, my moral standards trump that of the bacteria.

But here's the question. Are the bacteria wrong for not wanting to die? If I murder millions of them, are they somehow wrong for seeing my actions as bad?

Now let's bring God into this scenario.

If a God decides that it is moral and good to boil all first babies in hot oil till they die, and humans consider that bad, are they wrong for doing so?

Even if a God, who is the arbiter of good and bad exists, on what basis are we to say that it's definition of good and bad have to be the one we adhere to? If I choose not to boil my child in oil, that will be seen as bad as per the God's standard. But am I really wrong for not wanting to do so?

Why exactly do we need to adhere to this God's definition of right and wrong?

Dtruthspeaker:


First, every one can see that I edited it to show the direction of my mind

SMH. Hahahahahaha . The Internet can give low lives and nit wits an opportunity of admittance into the auditorium of great scholars, but it will not hide their manuscripts of poor mental acceleration and intellectual incompatibility.

You are just giving shallow excuses to cover up your obvious dyslexia and attention deficit . Your blathering ripostes can only be from someone who came armed only with bigotry and hubris to an intellectual discuss.

It is not reasonable for you to be specific as to the sun as the sun is not the only thing in existence in which people may or may not even argue about.

Therefore, I am free to use other things in existence to make my point.

My post was about the existence of the agglomerates of fact that G.A.M means a bus going to or coming from Warri. (Object)

AuthenticKing:

You made a baseless statement, insinuating that your Bible coming after those is an evidence that your Bible is worth considering and then I was trying to let you know that your Bible is a successful copycat. If you can't understand that, then it's up to you.

AuthenticKing:

Your comment there was not worth countering, you made a very baseless assumption and so I dismissed it because the evidence shows something very different.

AuthenticKing:

Here is an example of you insulting people who don't agree with you. Now what is the meaning of this nonsense you wrote below?

AuthenticKing:

1+1 = 2 remains the same all over the world and it's unchanging but morals are subjective and changing according to time, place and culture so you see it's not absolute.

AuthenticKing:

Of course, they do insult you because you rub your beliefs on them without any evidence. I know it's wrong to insult you (just like it is for you to insult and curse them!)

Wilgrea7:

At the end of the day, they are both subjective. Subjective in the sense that the definitions of right and wrong have shifted from personal opinion among different humans, to personal opinion among different gods.

Endtimer:


A few glancing blows as I am otherwise preoccupied. This bit is an obviously disingenuous red herring. You purport to address the moral argument which presupposes God's existence and quickly tell us to prove God's existence. You've defeated your own point by making it clear that objective morals do exist in the theistic faiths, so you've adjusted to arguing which set of morals should be considered objective. The argument is about morality and not the existence of God and is completely sound on its own. If you wish to address God's existence and why we are Christians rather than Muslims or Jews, go ahead a create a post to discuss it, but do not pretend that this is a challenge to the moral argument.

Endtimer:
... Living like He does therefore strangely provides otherworldly fulfillment ...

Endtimer:
... failure to live like God will result in damnation. This and the two above are some reasons to live like God ...

Endtimer:

This is from the top of my-tired-head so I expect to do a lot of qualifying and explaining when I get back.

AuthenticKing:

Man made laws to be above the people, it was man that gave that power to the laws. The gods including your God were used as tools by man to give power to the law. It's evident in all codes and laws that existed before and after the Bible.

AuthenticKing:

Giving it's own report of the status quo by copying and editing to suit its goal

AuthenticKing:

This doesn't prove anything sir. You know what it proves? That Christianity is a very successful business, ...

Endtimer:


The above is hardly representative of theistic consensus. You still think God just decides arbitrarily to do X or Y. It isn't God's definition of right and wrong; those are just words created to describe God's characteristics and their antithesis respectively. Also your argument's appeal is essentially ethical (ironic for someone trying to establish moral subjectivity). You must be aware that what the bacteria in the toilet feel has no bearing on moral objectivity. Therefore, you are trying to make us feel sorry for them rather than address the philosophical underpinnings of the moral argument.

The last sentence makes sense. As someone must have already pointed out to you, the answer is: you don't. You have free will to do as you wish, however, you may find that lifelong marriage will fulfill you and that homosexuality will give you diseases; this isn't a form of the prosperity gospel (check out my post on antinomianism for more on that) but it is true in several instances. The reason for this is that:

- You are made in God's image and your nature and mine are corrupted versions of His own. Living like He does therefore strangely provides otherworldly fulfillment.

- God is not only omnibenevolent but omniscient. His knowledge of everything means that we have good reason to trust and emulate Him.

- This is what you want to hear, so I'll be direct: failure to live like God will result in damnation. This and the two above are some reasons to live like God.

This is from the top of my-tired-head so I expect to do a lot of qualifying and explaining when I get back.

Endtimer:


The above is hardly representative of theistic consensus. You still think God just decides arbitrarily to do X or Y. It isn't God's definition of right and wrong; those are just words created to describe God's characteristics and their antithesis respectively. Also your argument's appeal is essentially ethical (ironic for someone trying to establish moral subjectivity). You must be aware that what the bacteria in the toilet feel has no bearing on moral objectivity. Therefore, you are trying to make us feel sorry for them rather than address the philosophical underpinnings of the moral argument.

The last sentence makes sense. As someone must have already pointed out to you, the answer is: you don't. You have free will to do as you wish, however, you may find that lifelong marriage will fulfill you and that homosexuality will give you diseases; this isn't a form of the prosperity gospel (check out my post on antinomianism for more on that) but it is true in several instances. The reason for this is that:

- You are made in God's image and your nature and mine are corrupted versions of His own. Living like He does therefore strangely provides otherworldly fulfillment.

- God is not only omnibenevolent but omniscient. His knowledge of everything means that we have good reason to trust and emulate Him.

- This is what you want to hear, so I'll be direct: failure to live like God will result in damnation. This and the two above are some reasons to live like God.

This is from the top of my-tired-head so I expect to do a lot of qualifying and explaining when I get back.

Near1:


Just one question if I may.

Why MUST God exist?

Silverseed:

For context for my questions below, you might want to know something about my views. I don’t believe in the reality or existence of anything that anyone can imagine or describe as a creator of the universe.

Dtruthspeaker:


Back up is not given to things that are commonly seen and known, even if you ignore that knowledge.



As I have always said, atheists are blind and almost never see what is in front of them, especially criminal atheists

Dtruthspeaker:


And I have proven that all these allegations made are either Lies or False Representations or circumstances which any and every reasonable person understands that actions are supposed to have their corresponding consequences in accordance with Law and Just-is.

But we all know that in the eye of criminals, Law and Just is, is unfair because criminals desire a state where they commit crimes and consume the fruits of their crimes yet no one punishing them for it, which is why they hate God and speak lies and everything evil against Him.

1 Samuel 6:19
But God struck down some of the men of Beth Shemesh, putting seventy of them to death because they had looked into the ark of the Lord. The people mourned because of the heavy blow the Lord had dealt them.

2 Samuel 6:2-7 (also 1 Chr 13:7-10)
He and all his men set out from Baalah of Judah to bring up from there the ark of God, which is called by the Name, the name of the Lord Almighty, who is enthroned between the cherubim that are on the ark. They set the ark of God on a new cart and brought it from the house of Abinadab, which was on the hill. Uzzah and Ahio, sons of Abinadab, were guiding the new cart with the ark of God on it, and Ahio was walking in front of it. David and the whole house of Israel were celebrating with all their might before the Lord , with songs and with harps, lyres, tambourines, sistrums and cymbals.

When they came to the threshing floor of Nacon, Uzzah reached out and took hold of the ark of God, because the oxen stumbled. The Lord's anger burned against Uzzah because of his irreverent act; therefore God struck him down and he died there beside the ark of God.