₦airaland Forum

Is the failure to believe in Jesus an evil OR a legalistic flaw?

Uyi keeps evolving.

Mr anony's arguments for objective based morality amazes me more and more. He claims there is objective morality, he claims such objective morality is impossible without God. No God No morality, yet morality is objective.

There is a problem:

New Testament scriptures do not have the prerequisite foundation from the Old testament. They have not been tested against the OT to prove their VALIDITY.

Ubenedictus: i'll say NOO

Why would you say that? Especially when you believe the foetus has a right to life?

Mr anony: But then context is not the same thing as perception. Objective moral principles did not change.

Let me give you an illustration.
If you cut an orange in half, you have half an orange but if you cut a person in half you don't have half a person you still have one person. Does this mean that mathematics is no longer objective? No it doesn't, it has only been applied in two different contexts.

I spoke a bit more about something like this here: https://www.nairaland.com/1294489/basis-human-morality/7#15884362

Read it and tell me what you think

Your orange and human example, I don't agree to it.

My examples added to yours, prove that morality is beyond mere principles, it goes beyond to application to reality and even understanding of the rules. Jesus himself found an eye for an eye principle faulty. Jesus made a field day with Mosiac laws, why becuase Jesus' perception of them in his own days/his reality, was different.

Sabbaths seem absurd. Unbelievers/sinners had natural entitlement to salvation. New Testament focussed more on poor people, rather than kings and priests.

^^

Lying to save the life of a person

Killing to save a country:

Lying and killing are frowned at and seen as immoral, however in the context they are in, everything changes. They seem right at the moment.

Do the rights of a woman cease upon pregnancy?

Pastor AIO: Oh! Maybe you're making a distinction between our sense of Morality, Morality per se (in se, or even sen se millia).

Okay if we grant that there is a Morality which is objective, how can we be aware of it? is it not with our Sense of morality? How can we be sure that the sense of morality is accurate? We can't? It is the whole epistemology/ontology question. How can you Know that something exists? The Truth is that all that is available to us is not knowledge but beliefs, Beliefs with varying measures of certainty.

Bottom line is that Sense of morality is subject to change. We are limited to what we can sense and the only thing that we can meaningfully talk about its our sense of morality. I Sense morality therefore I am Moral. lol




So to answer the above I say that I am not equipped to make any pronouncement on Mala in Se but I can make pronouncements on my sense of Mala.

You can only discuss 'Mala in Se' with people from the same wider cultural milieu as yourself.

People say that genocide is wrong is wrong is wrong. Tell that to the Israelites that invaded Canaan. It wasn't just during the invasion. But for centuries afterwards is was an issue of pride. Reading the bible there is nowhere at any point that you get any sense of remorse and the bible spans centuries. So for centuries we have an act of genocide that not only were the perpetrators not ashamed of, but furthermore it was actually a matter of pride for them.

Go and tell them about Mala in Se.

One word: Perception. Percerption varies hence morality itself must vary.

Uyi Iredia: So what ? The point can't be over-emphasized (given antecedents as Seun's) that many prominent scientists (past and present) are Christians.

Oh mine!! Irrelevant. We are refering to systems (religion vs science).

Death has no purpose, so for a nihilist it is not a second option.

Deep Sight: That human morality does not derive from evolution, animal instinct or survival, because all of these are completely amoral, ruthless and practical. It derives from the recognition of the spirit.

I have to disagree with the above at this point. Evolution is guided by survival of the fittest not the most ruthless. It is conceivable that there could be a point where evolution and compassion meet. Gregarious animals are thrive on compassion, common identity and purpose. Humans are no different.

Tpfkakambo: because it is consistent with scientic and logcl reasong. Evry thg physcl has an orign.
If ths wasnt so , then physcl thngs wud have no origin theyd b timeless, if thyre timeless then they shdn b degradable either in frm or compostion,but decay of physcality is d norm again prvg tht time is tckg away on physcality.

Wat dyu mean by Gods attrbute of necessity.

Ur premise is tht a cause cud have a natural or supernatural agent.
Then u say, a supernatural agent is not always necessary for a cause to occur,
then conclude tht based on dat God/supernatural agent doesnt exist.
Wch is utterly invalid a conclusion.

How dyu arrve at such a conclusion?

Even d premise wch most readers acceppt as valid contain flawed assumptions.

If Everything has an origin, what will God's origin be? What will Reality's origin be? What will be Causality's origin? What will be Nothingness itself's origin??

Your arguments are too bad!

@anony any entity.

striktlymi: I made no assertion of my own...only built on the argument of Kay.

Kay tried to refute the necessity of the supernatural cause with a natural cause...I only pointed out what Kay missed in his argument...

The Supernatural cause is necessary because it caused all other causes ofwhich the so called "natural world" is a part of...

So he can't say the existence of the natural cause makes the supernatural cause irrelevant...so in the event that you did not notice...I never made any new assertion that could be termed 'mine'...

Your belief that the Supernatural causes the natural is totally based on an assumption that Nothing must first exist before everything else.

Mr anony: it tells me nothing of what you mean by "natural".

Natural is the consistency btw the nature/character of an entity to its behaviour.

Tpfkakambo: Your conclusion from the premises is absurd and wrong..
5.) A cause is either supernatural or natural
(i.e a cause can have a supernatural or natural agent)
that means there is a binary possibility of the origin of the cause. only 2 possible originators of the cause.

6.) "A course is not necessarily supernatural"
i.e
a course is not always the result of a supernatural agency.

this is a rehash of point 5. this point was un necessary.

7.)
therefore God is not necessary, and CANNOT EXISTS.
bunkum.
in other words,
therefore God , a supernatural agent, may not the originator of a cause,
A natural agent may be the originator of the cause.
Therefore if a cause is naturally originated,
it is not at the same time supernaturally originated . mutually exclusive agency.
so if a cause is NOT supernaturally originated,
THEN the originator of that cause CANNOT BE ATTRIBUTED TO be SUPERNATURAL.
this is the conclusion that follows, but the OP twisted it all up.


Your points could be summarized as:
1.) God is a timeless, eternal being.
2.) God is an agent , a causer. (he causes events to occur)
3.) A cause must have an Agent.
4.) A cause can have only 2 types of agents: natural or supernatural.
5.) A cause doesnt need a supernatural agent.
6.) Therefore , since a cause doesnt require a supernatural agent, God is un necessary as as an agency and doesnt exists.


errors:
------
#1- u assume all causes can be started without a supernatural agent.
#2- u contradict urself:
God is an agent, a supernatural agent,
and there is a natural agent.
if there are 2 agents, then both agents exists.
if God is an agent (a supernatural agent), then he could produce an event (a cause).

#3- unfounded assumption.
the natural agent is more dynamic,than the supernatural agent.
your premises insinuate this.
that a cause is more likely to be started originated by a natural agent than by a supernatural agent.

#4- ignored implications of a supernatural agency .
A supernatural agency, CAN bring about an event, one out of nothing-
or out of something.
so a supernaturalagent can start a new process from an old one-
using old causes as building blocks for new causes (events)

but a natural agent, cannot summon a supernatural or anykind of being, to bring about an event.

#5- injected assumption :
A supernatural agent MUST use a pre existing CAUSE (an event) ,as building blocks,
to bring about an event.
Because with human agents creating causes, creating out of nothing isnt possible,
all human tangible fabrications rely on old causes..
therefore if this is how it is for Man IT MUST BE THE SAME WAY FOR GOD..
In other words, God has Man's Limitations...
(wrong!)
the argument will always go back to hovering on this point.

#6 - injected assumption2:
a natural agent can produce the same effect as a supernatural agent ( it is acceptd that there are two agents
)
a natural agent is nothing but matter ,acting under some elemental base force.
e.g wind , generated by differing air pressures and gravity,will move and woosh but is mindless.
meanwhile a supernatural agent , is not believed to be mindless but intelligent and logical and dynamic
possessing the faculties of will and volitions , all human characteristics except a physical body.
The natural agent you allude to , isnt on the same par with the supernatural agent in the premise
and so cannot do what the supernatural agent can do based on their characteristics.

Its like saying,
the forces of nature (natural agent)
can build a complex house (the event/cause)
that an architect (supernatural agent ) can do?!

the agents used in your premises have different assumed characteristics so your argument fails on those
false assumptions in the agency premises alone.

Why do you believe Nothing at all existed in the past?

My conclusion is the consequence of all the premises, the conclusion you proposed misses out the key premises: God's attribute of necessity.

Tpfkakambo: does water jump into a kettle,wch evolved by CHANCE , move to a stove tht evolved by CHANCE strke match direct the flame to a burner and boil all by CHANCE.
the emotional outburst are unnecessary. Stay on d logic lane..

You kept adding too many assumptions, who said anything about kettles and burners?? I simply asked about boiling water simpliciter, the change from liquid to vapour, whether it is by chance or by God.

Tpfkakambo: from this argument, u already negate scientifc answers to d wrlds origin. Even godless science agree tht d world has an origin.

2. You demonstrate an ability to digest an idea of an eternally existg object.
So y does it seem strange to u atheists to assimilate a notion of an alwys existg being-God?

The Universe is said to have an origin, not the natrual world.

Tpfkakambo: you wish a natural cause is more plausible. Logically thts dog poo ,
you credit to chance the faculty of intellect far mor superior thn even d collectve brain power of d best brains can configure! Blind mindless chance did this!!
Mor like willful self deception

Why are you ppl like this?! Is it chance or God that makes water boil??! C'mon. Think

striktlymi: Lol!!!

The second phrase, negates the first...

I don't see how

striktlymi: ...and your basis would be?

Something can not come out of Nothing. So a natural world is selfexistent

striktlymi: Even if we assume insufficient reason, do you now draw your conclusion based on what you are yet to ascertain?

I'd hold natural causes to be selfexistent just as supernatural causes.

Deep Sight: Reduced deductive arguments

First Argument

Premise 1. It is not wrong or evil when animals kill other animals or seize their food.

Premise 2. Humans are animals.

Conclusion: It is not wrong or evil when humans kill other humans or seize their food.

Beat that, please.

Note: if morality is expressed in a group, your argument should not be centred round the individual, rather the group. The individual upon the basis of survival sheds a part of his identity to the group.

For a group, it entirely ok to eat up, bomb, machine gun other groups. But as time goes on, humans see themselves in larger groups; like we are Africans, rather than just Yorubas and Hausas, we are Europeans, we are white, we are humans etc. And diff moral boundaries for these groups.

In essence your conclusion still stands.

striktlymi: One small detail you left out...the Supernatural cause is also the first cause...without it there will be no natural cause.

But as I said earlier there is no sufficient reason to believe natural causes aren't always available as supernatural causes.

Science is a process. Evolution, Global warming, Big Ban.g, M-theory, general relativity theory are the ideas in vogue. These are what's being researched and discussed. The point is just telling the truth, but discussion.

So it doesn't make sense to throw out scientific theory because you believe it isn't true, it would be a premature judgement.

Ot is clear that for secular states, it is unconstitutional to propagate religious ideas. Public schools are channels of communication, and they should reflect the secular nature of the State.

striktlymi: Why is the point a good one?

Thehomer's sentiment is merely why a supernatural cause rather than natural cause which we can observe and PREDICT.

@striklmyi

Natural and supernatural causes compete, and if you noticed I said a cause can either be natural or supernatural. Remove from your mind any superiority you believe the supernatural has over the natural.

Hence the universe either has a supernatural cause or natural cause, and a natural cause is more plausible. So the supernatural is merely a second option, its not compelling necessary.

thehomer: If all you can observe is C and maybe B, at what point can you introduce A?

Good point from thehomer.

striktlymi: Morning Kay,

Brilliant!...this is simply brilliant...but...



You forgot to state why God is necessary and to whom is he necessary to...

Do you mean that he is necessary for man to exist? Or do you mean that he is a necessity for the existence of everything and everyone?

Let me take it that your meaning is that God is a necessity because he made all that is not in existence to come into existence...



This really is a repeat of the first premise with a little twist...probably meant to introduce the element of doubt. If he exists then he becomes necessary because of the aforementioned reason but if he does not then the argument ends here.

Hence, you hinge the existence of God on whether he is necessary or not...the argument should have started here in my opinion because this brings forth the crux of the argument...



Statement meant to introduce the position of Theists I guess...

Now how is God Supernatural? The likely answer would be because he is not part of nature i.e he is beyond nature...this is reasonable I believe.

A computer programmer is not necessarily part of his program...in a similar vein, an inventor is not necessarily part of his invention...hence God is not necessarily part of his creation i.e. he is not necessarily governed by nature and its laws.



Agreed but we should not forget that these natural causes were brought about by this supernatural cause...without the supernatural cause there won't be any natural cause...this actually is the position you attempt to disprove.



Okay...



Agreed but the natural causes are not necessary because they wouldn't have existed without the supernatural cause...have it in mind that this has not shown that the supernatural cause is not necessary...

In order to show that the supernatural cause is not necessary, there is a need to demonstrate that the supernatural cause is not needed for the natural causes to be...anyways, this still depends on your definition of what is natural.



You have not demonstrated that God is not necessary...look at it this way...

'A' causes 'B', 'B' causes 'C'...your argument now is that since 'A' and 'B' are both causatives therefore 'A' is not necessary...but this does not follow because without 'A' existing, 'B' or 'C' would not exist.


EDIT:

If the argument is intended for Theists then it would make sense but to an Atheist, it would have failed from the beginning.

Mr striktlymi, thank you so much for saving this thread and for the indepth scrutiny of the OP.

Yes, 1 and 2 were repeative, I wanted to stress on that necessity attribute of God both as his attribute and only reason we will accept his existence. But next time I will be more precise and careful with my language.

I will skip to 6. We are more familiar with natural causes, natural causes are better explanation for phenomena than supernatural causes. The only way natural causes wouldn't be available is if there was no natural world and a non-systematic (supernatural) cause is the only available option. But there is no sufficient reason to be there wasn't always a natural world.

Note: that a natural world here isn't only the Universe, it includes abstracts.

So to the conclusion: if natural causes still linger, then God is necessary as a supernatural cause. And since he is by attribute necessary, we can calmly say God doesn't exist.

LMAOO!!!!!!!

Wait. . .

God punishes us for simply staying away from him?