DoctorAlien's Posts
Nairaland Forum › DoctorAlien's Profile › DoctorAlien's Posts
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 (of 137 pages)
dalaman:So rape is not really bad? |
dalaman:I seriously don't want to believe that you're dull. Do you even know what a moral absolute is? That something is enforced by a group of humans does not mean it is a moral absolute. Please, make meaningful contributions, not ignorant comments. Go and first check the meaning of moral absolute, then come back. |
hopefulLandlord:LOL GOD is the Author of the universal moral code.Don't tell me you're running. Whether rape is wrong in China or Gambia is not the issue. You might want to go and read the thread again from the beginning. The issue is: if I decide that rape is good, it is good for me. Assuming that 200 more people share the same view, rape is good for us. Now, is rape really good? |
dalaman:That women should desist from driving is not a moral absolute. Don't prove to us that you're not intelligent. |
felixomor:He's clutching on to an obvious moral absolute so as not to appear bad, and yet he is denying the Author of that moral value A simple yes or no would have been enough for me. |
hopefulLandlord:LOL Felixomor really predicted that you'll never answer the question.But this has been my question all this while: if there are absolute moral values(like desisting from rape), who made them absolute? |
dalaman:Can the views of a group of persons turn something that could be a relative(desisting from rape) into an absolute? |
hopefulLandlord:If I see rape as good, it is good for me. Assuming 5 more persons, or 100 more persons are of the same view, rape is good for us. Is rape really good? |
hopefulLandlord:Peurile, I must say. I have no definition of murder. Instead, the dictionary has one. |
dalaman:Is rape absolutely bad? If yes, who declared it absolutely bad? |
hopefulLandlord:The things they decided are good: are they really good? If they decide rape is good, is it good? Who declared their decisions which they call "good" absolutely good? |
dalaman:There are a thousand and one threads on this issue. Kindly go to those ones. Don't derail this thread. Thank you. |
felixomor:LOL. It's hypocrisy/inconsistency to hang on to some absolute moral values when you cannot say who made them absolute. Almost all the "atheists" in the house can agree that rape is absolutely bad, but they can't say who pronounced it absolutely bad. |
No "atheist" has been able to give us the reason why rape or murder is bad absolutely. Could it be that they are not really moral subjectivists as they claim? |
ValentineMary:How can GOD tamper with what you want to do just because He knows the future? That GOD knows that mr. A would end up in hell: does it mean GOD is the reason why mr. A will enter hell? especially when GOD made available chances for mr. A to avoid hell, and that people go to hell based on what they do? |
ValentineMary, please don't derail this thread by bringing in talks about evolution. Please, refute the OP or go to another thread. Thank you. |
ValentineMary:Life, then, is utimately purposeless. We are on earth for no reason. That's what you mean. Life is meaningless. We only struggle to give it meaning. Nice and healthy view. God gave man freewill yet he has a purpose for usI can have a purpose for my son: to make him a medical doctor. But then he can choose to be a lawyer. You now see what freewill is? |
hopefulLandlord:Is giving to charity good? If yes, who pronounced it absolutely good? It cannot be a group of persons because each of them is just of the opinion that charity is good. That the opinions of 5 or 10 or 1 millon persons are coincidentally the same does not turn what could be a relative(giving charity) into a moral absolute. |
hopefulLandlord:Come on. Don't be dodgy. Are you saying that there is nothing universally agreed upon as good? |
hopefulLandlord:Who made it binding? Who said killing is bad? people gave the lawmakers the authorityIf nothing is universally agreed upon as good, why will the belief of probably 10 million people make a relative absolute and binding? Can it not be seen that "killing is bad" is just the opinion of one random person, and which happens to coincidentally be the opinion of the next person? What authority has a group of persons to declare a moral absolute? |
hopefulLandlord:I have not pointed out any absolute moral value. Moreover, this indicates that you don't really know what I'm talking about when I say absolute moral values. It is simply something that is universally agreed upon as moral/good. So, are you saying that there is nothing universally agreed upon as good? |
hopefulLandlord:Who made the laws binding? Who gave him/her/them the authority? Who said killing is bad? Does the belief of a million human beings turn a relative into an absolute? |
dalaman:If life has no purpose and meaning, and you exist today by chance, why do you go on living? |
ValentineMary: DoctorAlien: |
ValentineMary, I'm not impressed that you're throwing non-sequitors and red herrings all over the place. Address the content of the OP. This is not a thread about evolution. Address the inconsistencies pointed out. Or just pass. |
ValentineMary:How did the fittest arrive? But in this case, our morality are guided by secular laws which has to a great extent helped in ensuring our survival.What secular laws are guiding our morality? The presence of a law necessitates a lawgiver. Who gave the secular laws? So u wondering why atheist should bother just keeps me thinking.Huh |
ValentineMary:In other words you say that life is meaningless. GOD gave man freewill. As such, man can do whatever he wants. But he is not free from the consequences of his actions. Any action has a consequence. Are you confused? How can you say we have no purpose and then say that evolution programmed purpose into us? What is the purpose of man from the evolution POV? |
How could there be laws at all without a lawgiver? The atheist cannot account for (1) the existence of laws of logic, (2) why they are immaterial, (3) why they are universal, (4) why they do not change with time, and (5) how human beings can possibly know about them or their properties. But of course, all these things make perfect sense on the Christian system. Laws of logic owe their existence to the biblical God. Yet they are required to reason rationally, to prove things. So the biblical God must exist in order for reasoning to be possible. Therefore, the best proof of God’s existence is that without Him we couldn’t prove anything at all! The existence of the biblical God is the prerequisite for knowledge and rationality. This is called the “transcendental argument for God” or TAG for short. It is a devastating and conclusive argument, one that only a few people have even attempted to refute (and none of them successfully). |
No one is denying that atheists are able to reason and use laws of logic. The point is that if atheism were true, the atheist would not be able to reason or use laws of logic because such things would not be meaningful. The fact that the atheist is able to reason demonstrates that he is wrong. By using that which makes no sense given his worldview, the atheist is being horribly inconsistent. He is using God’s laws of logic, while denying the biblical God that makes such laws possible. |
However, the atheist cannot account for laws of logic. He cannot make sense of them within his own worldview. How could there be immaterial, universal, invariant, abstract laws in a chance universe formed by a big bang? Why should there be an absolute standard of reasoning if everything is simply “molecules in motion”? Most atheists have a materialistic outlook—meaning they believe that everything that exists is material, or explained by material processes. But laws of logic are not material! You cannot pull a law of logic out of the refrigerator! If atheistic materialism is true, then there could be no laws of logic, since they are immaterial. Thus, logical reasoning would be impossible! |
LEGENDS AND TRADITIONS When I was in school, I was taught that, as a boy, George Washington chopped down a cherry tree and confessed his transgression to his father saying, "I cannot tell a lie". Parson Weems' biography of George Washington is the source of that story. According to modern historians, the cherry tree event never happened.I was quite surprised to hear that because I had never questioned the story. Articles on the Internet say that Parson Weems deliberately created the cherry tree legend some time between 1800 and 1809. But perhaps Parson Weems wasn't deliberately deceiving people. Perhaps he was simply passing on a story that he believed to be true. Either way, modern biographers of George Washington say that the cherry tree episode never really happened. |
Laws of logic stem from God’s sovereign nature; they are a reflection of the way He thinks. They are immaterial, universal, invariant, abstract entities, because God is an immaterial (Spirit), omnipresent, unchanging God who has all knowledge (Colossians 2:3). Thus, all true statements will be governed by God’s thinking—they will be logical. The law of non-contradiction, for example, stems from the fact that God does not deny Himself (2 Timothy 2:13). The Christian can account for laws of logic; they are the correct standard for reasoning because God is sovereign over all truth. We can know some of God’s thoughts because God has revealed Himself to us through the words of Scripture and the person of Jesus Christ. |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 (of 137 pages)
No. Does ur said God know the future? Yes. So if God knows that his purpose would fall through, yet he goes ahead to give someone a purpose which he knows would eventually fail. I don't know how u still don't see the inconsistencies here man. [/i]