KnownUnknown:


And religion has a “spiritual” origin. But guess who created the “spiritual”.

tctrills:

Do you have any evidence of human law before religion or is it just what you believe? From Egyptian to Babylonian and other civilizations we have founded on religion

KnownUnknown:


Erroneous? Brother, you misspelled ridiculous. If Christianity was really about bettering human affairs, the Catholic Church would be more powerful than it currently is. The period when the CC and Christianity held away in Europe is known as the “dark ages”. Is Africa, now in the throes of Christianity and the disgusting Arab nonsense, not experiencing its “dark
ages”?

AuthenticKing:


Have you heard of the Hammurabi code? Quite brutal like the old testament but it wasn't founded on religion. It's just one example.

tctrills:

The Hammurabi code was the law of the Babylonian. First you have zero evidence that it was not founded on religion. We have evidence of Babylonian religion that outdates the code.
Just so you know, the Babylonian nation was super religious at the time the codes were written.
There is no evidence that the laws in the code did not bear root from religion.
Even before the codes were written, the Babylonians had religion.
My point remains that even non religious laws evolved from a religious origin.
Do some research and you would find that religion in Babylon outdates the code

AuthenticKing:


Lolz. Even though the Babylonians and even the king himself was religious, he didn't base his laws on the religions of the time. Let me take back in time again, have you heard of the code of Ur-Narmu too, the laws there seem to be similar to that in the Hammurabi code and Ur-Narmu himself didn't base these laws on any god or any religious figure and it's quite probable that Hammurabi himself copied some of Ur-Narmu's laws.

Humans have always created laws to control people regardless of gods or religion. Religions only capitalized on these laws.

tctrills:

You don't seem to get it do you? My point remains that religious laws predates our conventional laws.
Today even though must people are religious, we don't base our laws on religion.
But at the bedrock of all human law and understanding of justice, and society is religion.
It[b] is impossible to see a civilization that had no religion. [/b]

Wilgrea7:


Can you kindly show me where I said both can be correct? If it were someone else now, you'd be foaming at the mouth calling the person a lying snake and whatnot.

Wilgrea7:

...Which one of these 2 is objectively right then? If we accept that objective morality exists, then one of these must be wrong. Maybe even both.

tctrills:

You don't seem to get it do you? My point remains that religious laws predates our conventional laws.
Today even though must people are religious, we don't base our laws on religion.
But at the bedrock of all human law and understanding of justice, and society is religion.
It is impossible to see a civilization that had no religion.

Dtruthspeaker:


Deny that this is not yours?

Wilgrea7:


Which one of these 2 is objectively right then? If we accept that objective morality exists, then one of these must be wrong. Maybe even both.

AuthenticKing:


Lolz. Even though the Babylonians and even the king himself was religious, he didn't base his laws on the religions of the time. Let me take you back in time again, have you heard of the code of Ur-Narmu too, the laws there seem to be similar to that in the Hammurabi code and Ur-Narmu himself didn't base these laws on any god or any religious figure and it's quite probable that Hammurabi himself copied some of Ur-Narmu's laws....

TenQ:

I think he has built a god in his own image and this is the Strawman he presents as representing God the Creator!

It's a waste of time!

Shalom!!

AuthenticKing:

When Ur-Narmu created the code, he didn't base it on religion. The beliefs of the time didn't create the laws for Ur-Narmu to write down, he created those laws to just control the citizens at the time, religions began borrowing after the time.
I don't know if there was a religion in Ur-Narmu's time but the important thing is that his laws weren't based on religion. Hammurabi's code wasn't also based on religion. The laws of Eshuanna weren't. These laws preceded main stream religions. So when you say our understanding of Justice and society is religion, that is not really true.

TenQ:

Your first Point:
Humans don't have any morality outside God's yardstick of morality. Human morality doesn't exist: we don't set the rules QED!

You seem not to get the point!

Humans have NO SAY in what is Moral or not. It doesn't depend on his rationale or rationality as it all depends on God to set His standard.

Simple Example:
Sex outside marriage is a VIOLATION of Gods moral standard.

Now, as humans, we want to rationalize to say:
Sex should be okay
1. When it is by freely consenting adults
2. When neither party is harmed
3. When both are in love
4. When there is protection against STDs and unwanted pregnancies

Unfortunately, all these even though good does not invalidate the fact that sex outside marriage is a violation of Gods moral code.

When it comes to moral codes, sorry, you have no say in the matter.

TenQ:

If the basis of morality of a God is not rational even to him nor can it be rationalized, then it is a pointless discussion .

Your Second Point:
Since you know that by Description of the Creator God by Christians, He is immaterial, Conscious, Intelligent, timeless and infinitely powerful, how do you intend to "Measure/Detect Him". Do you suppose that God can be dragged into the laboratory?

It is sufficient to know that
1. Infinite regress of Cause and Effect is impossible
2. The Universe and everything called matter, time and space had a beginning
3. Order from Data and Instructions are products of an intelligent mind

Then, Ask yourself if God doesn't Exist!

tctrills:

This your logic is impossible to confirm. Every single society in this world stands on a religious foundation. Much of our laws and societal expectations with set by religions systems.
For more than 95% of recorded history, human laws, rules and standards were set by religion in every single society.

Wilgrea7:


What God? The God of Christianity, Islam? Hinduism? Eledumare? Ra? Which God in particular are you talking about here? Because it seems you're making moral claims based on your God, and someone else could make a different, and contradictory one based on theirs.

In regards to the rationality, you were the one who said..



Morality from a God does not need to be rationalized by humans to apply. It applies irrespective of it's rationality to humans. But this is besides the point.

The point of my subjective vs objective morality wasn't to say whether or not humans had any say in anything. It was to present a situation where something being objectively moral, in respect to a God, would not be a sufficient reason to want to adhere to it.



I'm not claiming God, in the general sense doesn't exist. Your reference to infinite regress and things having a beginning does not apply here.

What I'm saying is, you, as a Christian, have to prove that your specific God, the Christian God, is indeed the creator of the universe, and therefore the source of the moral laws that govern it. Not the muslim one, not the hindu or ancient egyptian one, but the christian one.

Your "everything having a cause" and "infinite regress" analogy only get you to something resembling a conscious first cause, which we can agree to call God. It gets you nowhere near any specific God.

In order to say that the christian God is indeed the source of objective moral laws, and not the hindu or muslim one, or any other one, then you need to show some sort of proof.

Now, on to your "dragging God into the laboratory" analogy. You do realize that this same excuse can be used for any and all of the other gods through history right? If something cannot be proven, then on what basis should anyone accept it as objective.

If objective moral laws cannot be proven in favor of any specific God, then on what basis should we accept their claims as truly objective? It then becomes a case of "I believe this is objective", which in itself, is subjective.

If a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Zoroastrian, or any other type of theist cannot prove that their specific God is indeed the arbiter of objective moral laws, then such claims to objective morality are dead on arrival

Wilgrea7:


I know I've addressed this before, but there's something I can't help but notice.

You accused me of trying to build god in my own image. But you also simultaneously tell me that a creator God can literally do whatever it wants, and no one would have the right to question it.

In my first example, I talked about how a god could deem the murder of children as good, and you cited your biblical passage as to how your specific God said we should love one another.

So far, you seem to incline yourself with the loving, merciful idea of a God in Christianity, which I understand, with you being a Christian and all. But what makes you think you're not the one who is actually wrong?

What makes you think you're not the one agreeing with a concept of a god based on personal preferences. Remember the bacteria vs toilet owner analogy.

What gives you the impression that if a God exists, it has to be a good one? You've used the excuse of conscience before, which I understand.

But what stops a God from giving you a conscience, while still being a sadistic entity? Afterall, he can do whatever he wants, without question.

You're the one who said humans have no say in what is moral and what is not.

If your conscience is part of what made you choose the Christian God, then aren't you the one creating, or more accurately, adopting the concept of a God based on subjective means, which in this case would be your conscience?

Isn't conscience a form of rationale, which should be irrelevant when talking about morality from a God? If the bacteria were more sentient, wouldn't their conscience tell them their death is wrong? Would it make their subjective judgement any more objective in regards to the toilet owner?

I've asked you something similar to this before, but you avoided it.

tctrills:


You are not getting my point. The Romans, the Greek and many great civilizations had Secular laws we get that
But my point remains that religion came before the secular laws in every civilization.
It's impossible to separate secular laws from religious principles.
I never said that all laws and codes are religious rather, I said that all laws have religious roots. The human moral code originated from religion.
It's true for African, native Americans, Asians, and every society there was religious laws before the secular.
Religion both predates and influences the secular.
History has no record of any people without a religion.

Dtruthspeaker:


And I always ask was there no Law before Hammurabi and Ur-Narmu made their laws?

Was Morality not already there waiting for them before they came and manufactured their legal?

AuthenticKing:


Lol. Does that prove your God made those laws?

AuthenticKing:


You claimed our understanding of Justice and society is based on religion and that is what I don't agree with you in.
Of course, man made religion to comfort themselves after the death of a loved one, to explain things they couldn't understand and so on. But before mainstream religions, many made laws independent of religion and these are what created our understanding of Justice. Rituals predates religion and religion predates the secular, yes I agree with you but religion didn't initially have any influence on our understanding of Justice, men did.

Dtruthspeaker:


Thank you for telling them these Truths, which is what I have been saying since but they do not want to hear, most especially because knowing this just proves that the Bible is Right and True.

Dtruthspeaker:


And one thing they do not want in this life, is for the Bible to be proven True. Which is why they see that the Bible is being proven True, they would scatter the argument with Change of Posts and Insults.

Dtruthspeaker:



Whereas, it is obvious that conventional laws called legal is men playing God and usurping His Rule and intermeddling with with His Laws so that they could control all other men instead of God controling all of us as it was in the beginning.

Daniel 7:25
And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws

And now people are completely deceived and have almost completely submitted to the absolute control of their fellow men, (imagine, it is a man like you, who can bleed and die, who controls you and tells you shall do and what you shall not do.) like chickens in a cage in the market.

Meanwhile he would not allow you control him as politicians have proven eg Buhari, Putin, bandits, murderers, unknown gunmen, atheists etc

And it is from that cage that these deceived people foolishly speak from.

tctrills:
Wrong... Religion offers a moral code.

Dtruthspeaker:


At least, It's a very good place to Start and the issue of man making The Law has been obliterated..

So we can now start looking beyond man which is where the Bible and God leads in this consideration.

AuthenticKing:


It doesn't, men do.

tctrills:
Its your opinion. It's ok if you feel religion that way but my argument remains that in every civilization, religion predates secular laws and secular laws evolved from religion. Our sense of morality draws its roots from religion.

AuthenticKing:


It isn't my opinion, it's the truth. Men have always made laws, it's evident when you go through those codes I listed above. They do not get their understanding of morality from religion.

tctrills:
Ok, at least we now understand each other's opinion

AuthenticKing:

It's fine if you insist it's my opinion. But get rid of any bias you have and make a deep research about codes and laws that existed in ancient times and you'll see that man made everything we believe in, ranging from morality to religion to rituals, etc. Probably gods and spirits gave them the ability to do that but religion didn't give man the understanding we have about morality, men did.

tctrills:

What research are you talking about? Everything you have said is not based on any research, it's just your opinion. There has not been a known civilization without religion. So if you don't believe that religion shaped secular laws it's up to you.

AuthenticKing:

I didn't say there were cultures without religion, I am saying that many made laws independent of religion. It's not an opinion, it's the truth.

tctrills:
But it's your opinion. when you have proof of it let me know.