₦airaland Forum

Endtimer:
I really don’t understand the point you’re making here. Please explain.

Ok. You said other religions have morsel of truths while Christianity has the ultimate truth and I objected by saying that Christianity borrowed its 'truths' from other truths and then claimed to be the holder of valid (the ultimate) truth.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I'm not so much of a moral consequentialist but a humanist, not a fundamentalist humanist but a freethinking liberal one who is willing to update or even change my views based on knowledge and experience. My focus is on how humans could live a better fulfilling life in a way that won't cause harm to other individuals.
But I appreciate your lecture on this issue and would be responding to your replies

Endtimer:
You’ll be pleased to know I’ve done so reading on your point of view. I’ll answer the quoted question with one of my own: what is your position on wars?

Rereading your responses, you are a moral consequentialist. On your view the morality of an action is contingent on the state of affairs resulting from it. This state must be one with no more people harmed than in the state preceding it.

Well... Partially Yes.

Endtimer:
However, the resulting state of affairs should also be one that advances humanity. As you can see, both conditions will often conflict with one another. Hence, my opening question on wars; a mode of natural selection that has played a tremendous part in the development of mankind. They cause harm, but ultimately lead to advancement. Another such issue is eugenics.

My opinion of wars is based on the particular situation. Like, in examining the situation, was the war necessary or should the situation be resolved some other way? For example, in the time of Pericles - an ancient Athenian statesman, he always examined situations whether wars were necessary or not. Whenever a war seemed inevitable, he limited campaigns and won through maneuvers with minimal loss of lives. One important thing to note here is how this man avoided so many wars at the time of his reign, he instead worked on consolidating his empire and strengthened existing alliances. With this, the Athenians' lives were better and they do not have to go to wars to advance their society.
My view on wars are not absolute but will always be based on the situation. Advancing the human condition by eliminating a selected number of people is very unnecessary unless there's a greater threat on the opposing society (even at that rationality is very important because if it's used, the society being attacked could still find ways to deal with the situation instead of going into a war) but if it's because a society feels it wants to expand its territory by trampling on others to achieve that, then I do not support that.

Endtimer:
Additionally, your view has a troubling relationship with time. When does a person consider not causing harm; now or in the near future? Perhaps a few thousand years. We are at a deadlock as one can often only guess through probabilities whether or not his actions will cause harm. For instance, Hitler’s parents were immoral in the sense that they conceived and raised him (an action), which led to WWII. However, they were moral in the sense that his eventual defeat contributed to technological advancement and the creation of policies to prevent history repeating itself.

I've never considered this but I would think about it and update my views on it.
All I have to say here is that Hitler's parents actions or his eventual defeat shouldn't be concentrated on morality but rather we should see his story through the lens of the measures the world took to prevent the event to repeat itself and how the world used the catastrophic occurrence to bring up the advancement of technology.
If Hitler wasn't born or he didn't cause a war, I still think some other event would have occurred to advance technology.

Endtimer:
If something will cause harm to (and possibly kill) 10 million people, but may improve the lives of countless more, does it count as a bad thing in your book? This is the frame of mind of every Stalin and Pol Pot. Utopian idealism run amok, causing unbelievable suffering because right and wrong are based on harm calculus and advancement.

As I wrote earlier on, it's always based on the situation. I can only answer this question if you present specific situations that led to wars, I do not have an absolute opinion on this.

Endtimer:
On the other hand, if we eliminated all pain and suffering (what you call harm), humanity would stagnate. We would die out extremely quickly. There is a balance I believe your philosophy cannot provide.

I would refer back to what initially led us to this... Muslims killing non-believers, gays or even adulterers; beating their wives and every other thing we find absurd in many civilized nations. If we ask them what their justification for doing what they do, they would quote their holy books. It doesn't make any sense.
I do not think all pain and suffering can be eliminated but I think that many of them could be prevented by looking at what leads to them critically and rationally with a humane and emphatic mind and then find ways to prevent them.

AuthenticKing:
If your God sets standards, he's not still different from humans who sets standards for citizens to follow. So it's the same thing.

The standard my God set proved to be the incomparable!

Just name any standard that has successfully united people from all races throughout the earth and ensure peaceful coexistence among them.

My God Jehovah did it globally among Jehovah's Witnesses {Isaiah 2:2-4; Micah 4:1-3} even among the most racist nations Jehovah brought out people for his name and we are all living as brothers and sisters today while all others are killing themselves over politics and racism! Revelations 6:3-4

Endtimer:
Well, you can’t criticize Christianity by telling me to imagine there was no Christ. However, I understand your point. I should also add that in spite of our disagreements, I’m sure a number of atheists and Christians here would agree on most moral issues in real life.


The answer was right there in the post you quoted. All I have to do is prove that one man is the boy’s father. He cannot have more than one father, so if one of the people standing in front of him is his father, we need not worry about those absent. Likewise, all I have to do is provide evidence indicating that Christianity is the most probable path to God. If I’m right, there is no sense investigating lost religions or any other religion. Hence, it is relatively easy to pull off. All that has to be done is scrutinize one faith, rather than all of them.

Yes. Finally. We agree. Although I'm a bit cautious of the wording “proving Christianity is true".

Mainly because to me, proving “the God of the bible" as the creator, and therefore arbiter of moral laws, and “proving Christianity to be true" are 2 somewhat related, but still different things.

But either ways, I'll be happy to engage with any sort of “proof"

Dtruthspeaker:
You have still not directly and expresly answered the question, your response is ambiguous.

I believe i have answered your question as clearly as i can. As far as we currently know, consciousness is associated with living beings, so if we accept consciousness as a part of the creation process, then yes, non-living things cannot create things.

But for the sake of your specific request and this discussion, I will explicitly spell it out.

A non-living thing cannot create the earth. Please proceed with bridging the gap between a creator and your creator.

You're the one being sentimental, AemmyJah, I would be replying your comments bit by bit to prove that and show other things wrong with your response.

Aemmyjah:
I think you're like a spoilt child disciplined by his parents but chose to complain of how wicked they are.

Theists who talk like this disgust me, are u equating the discipline our parents gave us to the barbaric punishments your God gave in the Bible?!
I'll throw your accusation back to you, you're like a parent who supports torturing a child or even burning him or her to ensure he or she lives right!

Aemmyjah:
Have you not met parents that passed bad things like genetic disorder to their own children? The law of genetics says that acquired traits are passes from parents to offspring from one generation to another. Our parents acquired sin and imperfections and handed it over to us and we thank them for the unkind inheritance. How do you expect to take clean water from an unclean vessel

And yet God created us to be perfect, in his own perfect image. How did humans manage to acquire these imperfect traits? Through sin. Who created sin? The Devil. Who created Devil? God. So why didn't he prevent him from being evil and passing it to others, he gave him 'freewill' and made him a powerful being. And yet as an all knowing being, he couldn't foresee that the Devil would rebel against him and bring forth evil... I could go on and on.

Aemmyjah:
Yet Jehovah has provided the means by which we can be saved from the problem and enjoy the life he originally purposed for men. You have not yet seen that in your Bible

Ehyaa, I feel so sad. I can't see that Jehovah has provided the means that I could be saved from the problems he himself caused. I feel so sad

Aemmyjah:
God did drown people in an earth wide flood but why did he do that? For fun? The Bible says that he does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked so what moved him to bring about the flood that killed many, and what kind of people perished in the flood? You talk as if someone dear to you perish as well. Do we not feel angry at how our human government and security operatives do not mete out justice to wicked people? If all the bandits and terrorists and gunmen were to invade your town and you had ultimate power, what will you do?

Another nonsense comparison. I wouldn't stress myself further in showing the false dichotomy here. But after drowning them in the flood, what happened next? Did humanity become perfect afterwards? Did drowning humanity solve anything?

Aemmyjah:
Children left their homes calling a anointed prophet bald, they keep taunting him, we don't know what further things try may have been doing but the man cursed them and bears came up to kill them all and they died? Are you angry at Elisha or God and excuse their actions or they were your own children
These same Baldhead was surrounded by enemies, yet he organized a great feast for them after praying to God to strike them with blindness and asked them to go. What would you have done?

You're making flimsy excuses here. The Bible clearly said the children called him baldhead and Elisha prayed for bears to destroy the children and you're trying to cover up by bringing up 'further things' they did. Chai! See what religion is doing to you

Aemmyjah:
Have you not read the prayer Jesus Christ prayed for those who beat him, spat and him and humiliated him like a criminal?
Have you not read how God spared a violent nation whereas his Jonah was so mad at such mercy that he wanted to die?
What will you have done if you were Uriah's brother, but the King David slept with him wife, impregnated her and have him killed in battle. He ought to die but he was spared.

I'm aware of all that but it doesn't justify for the barbaric actions on the other parts of your book. If we were to exclude the good deeds in the new testament, the barbaric actions of God outweigh the good parts in the old testament.

Aemmyjah:
The people of Israel were rebellious against God and murmuring all the time instead of putting faith in God? Is God their servant? They saw how he rescued them from Egypt but they thought they could use murmur to get what he wanted. Even Moses wanted to die and they tried stoning him, they murmur and wanted to go back to Egypt. If you had a tenant or an employee always murmuring at your way of doing things, despite all the good you do, he keeps murmuring. Will you keep tolerating it forever?

I will simply stop doing the good since he or she doesn't appreciate my good deeds not sending snakes to bite him or her to death.

Aemmyjah:
You are being sentimental here

I repeat, you're the one being sentimental. You're using emotions to defend your God even when he was clearly brutal.

MaxInDHouse:
The standard my God set proved to be the incomparable!

Just name any standard that has successfully united people from all races throughout the earth and ensure peaceful coexistence among them.

My God Jehovah did it globally among Jehovah's Witnesses {Isaiah 2:2-4; Micah 4:1-3} even among the most racist nations Jehovah brought out people for his name and we are all living as brothers and sisters today while all others are killing themselves over politics and racism! Revelations 6:3-4

So the God you serve is different from the one followed by the numerous sects in Christianity? If yes, or your normal answer, they detracted from the teachings of Jesus. Then we can't rely on your God who fails to unite these sects that profess his name (probably waiting for the last day to come and take his people).

Endtimer, I would reply to your second comment when I get back.

AuthenticKing:
You're the one being sentimental, AemmyJah, I would be replying your comments but by bit to prove that and show other things wrong with your response.

Theists who talk like this disgust me, are u equating the discipline our parents gave us to the barbaric punishments your God gave in the Bible?!
I'll throw your accusation back to you, you're like a parent who supports torturing a child or even burning him or her to ensure he or she lives right!


And yet God created us to be perfect, in his own perfect image. How did humans manage to acquire these imperfect traits? Through sin. Who created sin? The Devil. Who created Devil? God. So why didn't he prevent him from being evil and passing it to others, he gave him 'freewill' and made him a powerful being. And yet as an all knowing being, he couldn't foresee that the Devil would rebel against him and bring forth evil... I could go on and on.


Ehyaa, I feel so sad. I can't see that Jehovah has provided the means that I could be saved from the problems he himself caused. I feel so sad


Another nonsense comparison. I wouldn't stress myself further in showing the false dichotomy here. But after drowning them in the flood, what happened next? Did humanity become perfect afterwards? Did drowning humanity solve anything?


You're making flimsy excuses here. The Bible clearly said the children called him baldhead and Elisha prayed for bears to destroy the children and you're trying to cover up by bringing up 'further things' they did. Chai! See what religion is doing to you


I'm aware of all that but it doesn't justify for the barbaric actions on the other parts of your book. If we were to exclude the good deeds in the new testament, the barbaric actions of God outweigh the good parts in the old testament.


I will simply stop doing the good since he or she doesn't appreciate my good deeds not sending snakes to bite him or her to death.



I repeat, you're the one being sentimental. You're using emotions to defend your God even when he was clearly brutal.

Again you're sentimental like a woman whose child was snatched away

I don't even know what you're talking about cos you can't prove or show me anywhere in the scriptures. This is a script of delusional sentimentalism
If you are nursing grudge against God, go n deal with it

MaxInDHouse:
The standard my God set proved to be the incomparable!

Just name any standard that has successfully united people from all races throughout the earth and ensure peaceful coexistence among them.

My God Jehovah did it globally among Jehovah's Witnesses {Isaiah 2:2-4; Micah 4:1-3} even among the most racist nations Jehovah brought out people for his name and we are all living as brothers and sisters today while all others are killing themselves over politics and racism! Revelations 6:3-4

And he's holding grudge with God when he punished those who grossly rejected those standards and trying to cause trouble for those upholding God's standards

Aemmyjah:
Again you're sentimental like a woman whose child was snatched away

I don't even know what you're talking about cos you can't prove or show me anywhere in the scriptures. This is a script of delusional sentimentalism
If you are nursing grudge against God, go n deal with it

How will you know what I'm talking about when you can't even examine your book rationally with empathy? When you have mindlessly accepted your book as the word of a divine being who supposedly has the final say in our lives?
Mr AemmyJah, I suggest you reread my response again, this time with a settled mind and you would begin to see the cruelty in your God's punishments to humanity.
You accuse me of delusional sentimentalism but anyone with a rational mind will know you're the one who is delusional and I'm sure some of your fellow Christians won't even agree with you.
I'm not nursing grudge against God (I'm 95% sure your own God doesn't exist, I would keep the 5% to maintain an open mind), I'm nursing a grudge against you who believes that the creator of our universe does such horrible things and even brings up flimsy excuses and illogical statements to defend him.

Aemmyjah:
And he's holding grudge with God when he punished those who grossly rejected those standards and trying to cause trouble for those upholding God's standards

Mtchew.

Mr Endtimer, I appreciate your insight on this. I haven't considered many of your points before but nevertheless, I still have my response to them.

Endtimer:
AuthenticKing:

Here are some additional issues with moral consequentialism. I have already mentioned the issue with time, so I will address moral responsibility, and geographical limitations.

Given your view that the morality of actions is dependent on their causal properties, rather than the actions themselves, you have set up a situation where what we do is of less account than the result of our actions. To take it further, who does what is also of fleeting significance. What matters is the state of affairs that actions contribute to. Hence the term 'consequentialist'; you are overwhelmingly focused on the consequences of actions and whether they subjectively contribute to human development, rather than the moral actors or acts themselves. To borrow terms from normative ethics, actions can either be considered morally right, wrong or neutral. I will now demonstrate that, on your view we will encounter geographical challenges as well as a moral dilemma invalidating the concept of doing good.
Given that there are only three states of moral actions everything we do must fall into one of these categories. I assume that, given your consequentialist inclination you would classify them as :

- Good: Any action whose consequence is the advancement of the human race.
- Neutral: Any action that neither contributes, nor subtracts from the present state of affairs.
- Bad: Any action that diminishes the welfare and/or progress of mankind.

The above classes constitute a fatal challenge for the consequentialist on the basis of moral responsibility. Moral responsibility refers to classes of actions that people ought to take on account of their "goodness". Given that these are actions, we can put aside the responsibility part and assess their morality independently. To address this let us consider our own actions:

Whatever it is you and I are doing now is hardly contributing to human advancement. Since we are not adversely affecting it, we are neither doing good nor bad. However, someone somewhere has just been shot or hanged unjustly. On the consequentialist view our actions did not result in a state of affairs better than the one preceding it on account of the evil occurring elsewhere in the world. This means that nothing we will ever do will ever be good as we have not contributed to a better state of affairs for all humanity. We have failed to cause human advancement.

On the other hand, the geographical problem arises if you attempt to disprove the above by stating that we are not to be held responsible for our actions not leading to consequences on a global scale. To do this you would be restricting the advancement of humanity to a local level. Local human advancement was the basis of the world wars. Worse still, on your view they could possibly have been right.

I'm not overwhelmingly focused on the consequences of actions sir. As I wrote intially, I'm a humanist who forms his opinion on reason, rationality and empathy. I would like to cite some examples to be able to respond to your comments in the best way I can:
Many of us agree that that it is morally wrong to lie, but look at this scenario: A boy is instructed by his father not to let anyone know he's inside because the father wants to rest and someone comes in wanting to see his father, should the boy abide by his father's rule and tell a lie or should stand by his 'moral standards' of not lying and tell the visitor that his father is inside thereby disturbing his father's peace?
Or the law of not stealing: What if in a family setting, the mother is very sick and their daughter discovers that the father has the money to cure the mother but decides to hide it (she knows where he's hiding it), let's also imagine that the father is a very aggressive hard-hearted person who would lash out the girl and the mother of the daughter exposes him. Should the girl keep silent and not steal the money or expose the father which could lead to deadly consequences or should she just steal the money smartly and ensure the mother gets sound treatment?
These are very simplistic scenarios but because I couldn't come up with better global extreme examples at the time of typing this, I had to stick with these.

If you look at these scenarios, you would see that some 'moral standards' had to be broken to look at the best possible way to mitigate harm for an individual and cause less harm for others. Lying to the visitor doesn't bring any harm to the visitor but ensures the father had some rest; stealing from the father brought some harm to the father's resources but sure saved the life to of the mother, money could be replaced but life would never. It's the type of 'advancement of human condition' I was talking about.

My proposition of 'advancement of the human condition' is heavily based on situational ethics grounded on rationality and empathy, on the particular situation. As I said before, I do not rely on any absolute opinion on what morals to follow when a particular issue comes up. We must look at the context of the situation to better know how to address the issues at hand.

I didn't respond to this part of your comment better anyways but I would as our conversation progresses.

AuthenticKing:
So the God you serve is different from the one followed by the numerous sects in Christianity? If yes, or your normal answer, they detracted from the teachings of Jesus. Then we can't rely on your God who fails to unite these sects that profess his name (probably waiting for the last day to come and take his people).

They are atheists disguising as believers!

A believer knows that he/she needs to TRUST (BELIEVE) in God's judgment, it's atheists that will kill their neighbours for politics and racism. True believers trust (believe) in God's Kingdom as in God's government!

Aemmyjah:
And he's holding grudge with God when he punished those who grossly rejected those standards and trying to cause trouble for those upholding God's standards

To him God was wrong to judge evildoers but he wants to live in a safe and peaceful environment with his family!

Wilgrea7:
I believe i have answered your question as clearly as i can. As far as we currently know, consciousness is associated with living beings, so if we accept consciousness as a part of the creation process, then yes, non-living things cannot create things.

But for the sake of your specific request and this discussion, I will explicitly spell it out.

A non-living thing cannot create the earth. Please proceed with bridging the gap between a creator and your creator.

Still not satisfactory. You have only clearly admitted that a non living thing cannot create. So that one is no longer in contention.

But you have not directly admitted that "the earth is created by a Person" for the other time I accepted your implied answer and you went on to deny your implied answer. So this time, you are going to have to be as clear as daylight without any doubt or controversy.

Aemmyjah:
I think you're like a spoilt child disciplined by his parents but chose to complain of how wicked they are.

What kind of a person starts a rebuttal with an insult?

Have you not met parents that passed bad things like genetic disorder to their own children? The law of genetics says that acquired traits are passes from parents to offspring from one generation to another. Our parents acquired sin and imperfections and handed it over to us and we thank them for the unkind inheritance.

Traits and actions are 2 completely different things. A trait is something like blue eyes, dark hair, and so on. Even the disorders, like albinism, are clearly not actions.

The actions you take today are yours and yours alone. No one goes around arresting the children of thieves for what their parents did.

Adam and eve's sin was an action. Not a genetic defect. The consequences of their actions are theirs to face. If you're trying to make a case that "sin" is somehow different, and is somehow genetic, then you better have some good scientific proof for that

How do you expect to take clean water from an unclean vessel

This analogy doesn't apply here.

Dtruthspeaker:
Still not satisfactory. You have only clearly admitted that a non living thing cannot create. So that one is no longer in contention.

But you have not directly admitted that "the earth is created by a Person" for the other time I accepted your implied answer and you went on to deny your implied answer. So this time, you are going to have to be as clear as daylight without any doubt or controversy.

There is absolutely no evidence that the earth was created by “a person". I'm trying to be careful with words here because of our understanding of what it means to be a person.

There's a big leap from “a conscious cause" to “a person".. a big leap that requires evidence of similar magnitude.

If you believe the latter, then you're shifting the burden of proof to you. Once again, the ball is in your court

AuthenticKing:
Why are you bringing law courts into this?

Everything and every act done or not done is under Law. You are here speaking coherently and reasonably because of The Law of good and decent conversation.

Everything is under Law and where there is dispute, they all end in Court.

AuthenticKing:
I don't want to go any further with you but I would just summarize what Wilgrea7 is explaining to you that you've (and will still) fail to accept, your comment can be used to defend other religious books too since suing them for copying from other books won't make sense. If your grounds for objecting to my statement about your book is based on 'locus standi', then the Quran, Jewish Tanakh, the Veda, etc are all correct about their claims about the origin of the universe!

As I told wilgrea7, "Each group (a party accused) have a right to defend themselves on their own force and merit.

Dtruthspeaker:
Everything and every act done or not done is under Law. You are here speaking coherently and reasonably because of The Law of good and decent conversation.

Everything is under Law and where there is dispute, they all end in Court.

As I told wilgrea7, "Each group (a party accused) have a right to defend themselves on their own force and merit.

And Wilgrea7 has told you, that a party's right to defend itself here is irrelevant, because this is clearly not about that.

The reason i told you that other religions could use this same logic to defend their books, was to show you how terrible the logic was, at arriving at any sort of tangible truth.

If other religions choose to use the faulty logic, then that's on them. It still doesn't prove anything. It doesn't prove your case, or theirs, because it's highly flawed.

Wilgrea7:
There is absolutely no evidence that the earth was created by “a person".

See yourself now! Yet you wanted me to proceed even when you would not be following.

Your "There is absolutely no evidence that the earth was created by “a person" already falls because,

1. You have confessed and admitted the Truth that a non living thing cannot create.

2. And a Person is a living thing, therefore, He is very much in the game o
"Who" created the earth and you have eliminated the "whats".

Thus, I'll wait for you to supply a valid contender, if you can, which I know you cannot, while letting you look at Arthur Conan Doyle

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbe-able, must be the truth."

Wilgrea7:
And Wilgrea7 has told you, that a party's right to defend itself here is irrelevant, because this is clearly not about that.

Which is why I told you "change of Post".

Dtruthspeaker:
See yourself now! Yet you wanted me to proceed even when you would not be following.

Your "There is absolutely no evidence that the earth was created by “a person" is already falls because,

1. You have confessed and admitted the Truth that a non living thing cannot create.

2. And a Person is a living thing, therefore, He is very much in the game o
"Who" created the earth and you have eliminated the "whats".

Like i said, I'm trying to be careful with words here, because of our current understanding of what it means to be a person.

So let me ask you this. Is every living thing a person? Is a dog, or a cat, or a dolphin a person?

Wilgrea7:
What kind of a person starts a rebuttal with an insult?



Traits and actions are 2 completely different things. A trait is something like blue eyes, dark hair, and so on. Even the disorders, like albinism, are clearly not actions.

The actions you take today are yours and yours alone. No one goes around arresting the children of thieves for what their parents did.

Adam and eve's sin was an action. Not a genetic defect. The consequences of their actions are theirs to face. If you're trying to make a case that "sin" is somehow different, and is somehow genetic, then you better have some good scientific proof for that



This analogy doesn't apply here.

Again, you're like a boxer trying to engage into a fight when he has a severe stomach ache
Adam and Eve sinned and became imperfect. Lemme illustrate. When they were perfect, they were like A4 paper that nothing has been written on it. Pure white. When they sinned, it is like a drop of oil on that paper. It is stained. If you take that document for photocopy, what will it look like? What about 1 billion billion copies?
There are some disease that are very likely to infect children right from womb but sin is like a disease, 100% infection and 100% mortality. Even David said so at Psalm 51:5 that he was conceived in sin. We did not inherit their actions as if we were to go eating the fruits they ate. We inherited sin and imperfections from them. Even atheists acknowledge that they too are imperfect like every other person whether you believe in Adam and and Eve as the first parents or you believe you are offspring of brute apes as evolution tells you

AuthenticKing:
How will you know what I'm talking about when you can't even examine your book rationally with empathy? When you have mindlessly accepted your book as the word of a divine being who supposedly has the final say in our lives?
Mr AemmyJah, I suggest you reread my response again, this time with a settled mind and you would begin to see the cruelty in your God's punishments to humanity.
You accuse me of delusional sentimentalism but anyone with a rational mind will know you're the one who is delusional and I'm sure some of your fellow Christians won't even agree with you.
I'm not nursing grudge against God (I'm 95% sure your own God doesn't exist, I would keep the 5% to maintain an open mind), I'm nursing a grudge against you who believes that the creator of our universe does such horrible things and even brings up flimsy excuses and illogical statements to defend him.

Go and rest with your false empathy
What empathy will you feel for terrorists and bandits if the federal government destroy them for they they do to peaceful citizens?
Is that not why people are campaigning and trying to change this government. Yet, when you hear news of a gunman enter a church and kill all the worshippers, you feel bad and blame God. If he were hunted and killed, you won't feel empathy. You are bearing a grudge against God and it is funny to see you are bearing a grudge against someone you believe does not exist. You are too funny this Tuesday. Shift

Wilgrea7:
Like i said, I'm trying to be careful with words here, because of our current understanding of what it means to be a person.

So let me ask you this. Is every living thing a person? Is a dog, or a cat, or a dolphin a person?

Change of Post! We all know what A Person is and there is no confusion or dispute that animals are not persons

So, back to you supplying a valid contender and alternative to God being the Person Who created our House called earth, if you can.

Thus, I'll wait for you while letting you look at Arthur Conan Doyle

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbe-able, must be the truth."

Dtruthspeaker:
Change of Post! We all know what A Person is and there is no confusion or dispute that animals are not persons

So, back to you supplying a valid contender and alternative to God being the Person Who created our House called earth, if you can.

Thus, I'll wait for you while letting you look at Arthur Conan Doyle

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbe-able, must be the truth."

Thank you for clarifying. It's good to make sure we're on the same page.

So in that case, what gives you the impression that the creator must be a person? As far as we know, personhood is something we ascribe to humans.

What evidence do you have that the creator/creators are persons.

Also, your quote doesn't really help you much here, because you're trying to push a false dichotomy.

Wilgrea7:
..So in that case, what gives you the impression that the creator must be a person? As far as we know, personhood is something we ascribe to humans.

You are still evading and attempting to raise up a new issue which is a Deviation from Post.

We all know what a Person is. This is beyond controversy or dispute.

So, it is either you present a valid alternative and contestant to God being the Person Who created our House called earth or we all know that you live in self deceits and delusion.

Wilgrea7:
.
Also, your quote doesn't really help you much here, because you're trying to push a false dichotomy...

It is not a false dichotomy but a true dichotomy in which the quote is still respecting your right (which false dichotomy does not respect) to freely and bring any valid alternative.

Thus, the burden is on you to bring a valid alternative, if you can.

Therefore, keep looking at Arthur Conan Doyle as you decide whether you would keep living in the deceit of yourself or accept the Truth for we all know that there is no alternative Only The Person Whom we call God. But, we'll await your decision whether self deceit or Acceptance of the only Standing Truth.

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbe-able, must be the truth."

MaxInDHouse:
They are atheists disguising as believers!

A believer knows that he/she needs to TRUST (BELIEVE) in God's judgment, it's atheists that will kill their neighbours for politics and racism. True believers trust (believe) in God's Kingdom as in God's government!

Lol! I expected this! Only you've added by referring to your fellow believers as atheists classifying them in the category you've mentally put atheists in; category of evil people. Lol!
I'm already getting tired of pushing further with you, I'm only happy that my objection to your initial claim still stands: your Supreme Being isn't different from humans in making morality.
Qed

Dtruthspeaker:
You are still evading and attempting to raise up a new issue which is a Deviation from Post.

I'm not evading anything. You're the one trying to subject me to a false dichotomy.

We all know what a Person is. This is beyond controversy or dispute.

So, it is either you present a valid alternative and contestant to God being the Person Who created our House called earth or we all know that you live in self deceits and delusion

Like i said earlier, we have to be careful with words. Personhood as we know it, is something used to define humans.

If you're trying to say that the creator is human-like, that is something you need to prove. Because i see absolutely no reason why the creator/creators, if they exist, have to be human-like.

Except of course you're using the word as a way to describe the degree of consciousness, of which you would also need to prove, because if consciousness is a scale, there's no reason to believe the creator/creators would have similar levels of consciousness.

As I've said a thousand times. The ball is in your court.

It is not a false dichotomy but a true dichotomy in which the quote is still respecting your right (which false dichotomy does not respect) to freely and bring any valid alternative.

Tempting, but I'm not about to start arguing with you about what a false or true dichotomy means in relation to “rights"

Thus, the burden is on you to bring a valid alternative, if you can.

Therefore, keep looking at Arthur Conan Doyle as you decide whether you would keep living in the deceit of yourself or accept the Truth for we all know that there is no alternative Only The Person Whom we call God. But, we'll await your decision whether self deceit or Acceptance of the only Standing Truth.

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbe-able, must be the truth."

Here's the problem with this quote you're trying to misuse. It only makes sense when all parameters, or information about a situation are known.

Without full knowledge on the possibilities a creator can follow, any sort of “elimination process" will be based on ignorance, rather than truth.

For example, what stops the creator from being a highly intelligent and conscious rat, or cat, rather than a “person". Or what stops it from being something which is not a person, but still intelligent and conscious?

Your personhood analogy fails here, because nothing suggests that consciousness, or intelligence, is limited to only persons (as far as our understanding of the word goes)

Wilgrea7:
What kind of a person starts a rebuttal with an insult?

It's one of the huge effects of dogma, I have attacked that which he believes so strongly to be true so his best way to respond is to start by insulting me. He's just like the 'lawyer' we're currently discussing with; heavily dogmatic folks.

Wilgrea7:
Traits and actions are 2 completely different things. A trait is something like blue eyes, dark hair, and so on. Even the disorders, like albinism, are clearly not actions.

The actions you take today are yours and yours alone. No one goes around arresting the children of thieves for what their parents did.

Adam and eve's sin was an action. Not a genetic defect. The consequences of their actions are theirs to face. If you're trying to make a case that "sin" is somehow different, and is somehow genetic, then you better have some good scientific proof for that

He has already responded by comparing Adam and Eve's actions to a disease, a disease that has been passed to the rest of humanity. Lol!
It's very hard trying to reason with someone deeply immersed in dogma! Chai!

Dtruthspeaker:
Everything and every act done or not done is under Law. You are here speaking coherently and reasonably because of The Law of good and decent conversation.

Everything is under Law and where there is dispute, they all end in Court.

As I told wilgrea7, "Each group (a party accused) have a right to defend themselves on their own force and merit.

As I predicted, you would never accept that your argument is heavily flawed so why should I expend my energy in arguing further with you?
Abeg, I don tire mbok.

AuthenticKing:
It's one of the huge effects of dogma, I have attacked that which he believes so strongly to be true so his best way to respond is to start by insulting me. He's just like the 'lawyer' we're currently discussing with; heavily dogmatic folks.


He has already responded by comparing Adam and Eve's actions to a disease, a disease that has been passed to the rest of humanity. Lol!
It's very hard trying to reason with someone deeply immersed in dogma! Chai!

It genuinely baffles me tbh. It's like talking to another version of Maxinthehouse.

I've also noticed his “you don't know anything" response when his points have been debunked. Like that helps his argument in any way.

You're really trying engaging with these guys.