Ep 25, "Guardian Angels" and justice

Create a topic and discuss! No subject is off limits, but moderators have the right to remove asshat posts. What's an asshat post? Selling stuff, trolling, harassing--the usual stuff you don't want to see either. Happy posting!
User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1688
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Ep 25, "Guardian Angels" and justice

Post by SEG » Sun Mar 10, 2019 3:47 am

Claire wrote:If morality is subjective, then what are you using as a guide, or a foundation, to compare what you consider to be moral, vs what God considers to be moral?
SEG wrote:The best foundation, reason.
Claire wrote:
Sun Mar 10, 2019 2:36 am
So, do you agree with Ayn Rand? Because she also believed that reason was the best and only true guide for moral action, but she still considered those moral truths to be objective. Hence, why her philosophy was called "Objectivism".
No, for morality to be truly objective, it must exist apart from human assessment. It can't be shown that it does, hence it remains subjective.
Claire wrote:When God ends one's existence on Earth it's with just cause, and it's good because it's just.
SEG wrote:Circular reasoning.
Claire wrote:No, because I didn't say God does it and it's just, and it's just because it's God.
SEG wrote:When God ends one's existence on Earth it's with just cause, and it's good because it's just. Really, why is it just cause? Because it's just. Then why is it just? Because its just cause. Why is it just cause? Because it's just. Then why is it just? Because its just cause. Really, why is it just cause? Because it's just. Then why is it just? Because its just cause. Why is it just cause? Because it's just. Then why is it just? Because its just cause. Getting dizzy?
Claire wrote:That goes beyond misrepresenting my argument. You fabricated an entire rant/conversation on my behalf.
You're welcome, I did it to save you the trouble of expanding it.
And, what would you know about what's "good" or "just" when you believe morality is subjective?
I know a lot about what is good or just because I have had good teachers and mentors. It was subjective for them too.
You may as well just say it's your opinion, but can't argue whether God does good or bad.
It is my opinion, just like you have opinions and how you think God has opinions. I argue that God is bad as he has a reputation of terminating people's lives against their wishes unjustly, amongst other aberrations.
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

Claire
Posts: 1034
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: Ep 25, "Guardian Angels" and justice

Post by Claire » Tue Mar 12, 2019 3:22 am

Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:If morality is subjective, then what are you using as a guide, or a foundation, to compare what you consider to be moral, vs what God considers to be moral?
The best foundation, reason.
So, do you agree with Ayn Rand? Because she also believed that reason was the best and only true guide for moral action, but she still considered those moral truths to be objective. Hence, why her philosophy was called "Objectivism".
SEG wrote:No, for morality to be truly objective, it must exist apart from human assessment. It can't be shown that it does, hence it remains subjective.
But, like I've said before, the existence of some things can be proven by the effect it has on the world around us, and in this case on human beings. We base legal systems and codes of conduct on morality, and teach morals to our children. And, not because "people think this way is good right now, so act this way", but because humanity is born with an innate sense of morality that tells us there are good and evil in the world. Our assessment may change what we see as moral action, but that is just our personal filtering of it based on our own experiences and understanding, so we're not always right in our judgement. In the way that we perceive light, a phenomenon existing outside of us, through our eyes and interpreted by our brain, but not seeing the full spectrum of light, we see morality in a limited way as well.
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:When God ends one's existence on Earth it's with just cause, and it's good because it's just. Really, why is it just cause? Because it's just. Then why is it just? Because its just cause. Why is it just cause? Because it's just. Then why is it just? Because its just cause. Really, why is it just cause? Because it's just. Then why is it just? Because its just cause. Why is it just cause? Because it's just. Then why is it just? Because its just cause. Getting dizzy?
That goes beyond misrepresenting my argument. You fabricated an entire rant/conversation on my behalf.
You're welcome, I did it to save you the trouble of expanding it.
You've chosen to not only misrepresent my argument, but fabricated an entire rant/conversation on my behalf, assuming it's what I would've said. What did you say recently about assumptions? Ah, yes:
...you shouldn't assume, because you know the old joke.
Play fair, please.
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:And, what would you know about what's "good" or "just" when you believe morality is subjective? You may as well just say it's your opinion, but can't argue whether God does good or bad.
I know a lot about what is good or just because I have had good teachers and mentors. It was subjective for them too. It is my opinion, just like you have opinions and how you think God has opinions. I argue that God is bad as he has a reputation of terminating people's lives against their wishes unjustly, amongst other aberrations.
Were they "good teachers and mentors" because they did well when teaching you, or because what they taught you were "good" morals?" When it comes to the actions of God, what you think of as "bad", "unjust", or "aberrations" are all things that evoke pretty strong emotive reactions from you for what is merely an "opinion". Why such conviction when denouncing God, or hurling vitriol at Christians for what you ultimately view as an opinion? Someone may enjoy vanilla over chocolate ice cream, but they probably wouldn't argue on an internet forum for days or years on end with the chocolate-eaters.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1688
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Ep 25, "Guardian Angels" and justice

Post by SEG » Wed Mar 13, 2019 11:18 am

SEG wrote:No, for morality to be truly objective, it must exist apart from human assessment. It can't be shown that it does, hence it remains subjective.
Claire wrote:
Tue Mar 12, 2019 3:22 am
But, like I've said before, the existence of some things can be proven by the effect it has on the world around us, and in this case on human beings. We base legal systems and codes of conduct on morality, and teach morals to our children. And, not because "people think this way is good right now, so act this way", but because humanity is born with an innate sense of morality that tells us there are good and evil in the world. Our assessment may change what we see as moral action, but that is just our personal filtering of it based on our own experiences and understanding, so we're not always right in our judgement. In the way that we perceive light, a phenomenon existing outside of us, through our eyes and interpreted by our brain, but not seeing the full spectrum of light, we see morality in a limited way as well.
Correct, it's subjective in that way.
Claire wrote:And, what would you know about what's "good" or "just" when you believe morality is subjective? You may as well just say it's your opinion, but can't argue whether God does good or bad.
Good or right broadly would be whatever promotes your well-being or other's well being without impacting on other people or the environment and makes humanity thrive. Bad or wrong broadly would be anything that harms others or the environment or hinders humanity thriving. They are different for all people and have no need for any deities. John Rawls does a good job of explaining his views on it.
I know a lot about what is good or just because I have had good teachers and mentors. It was subjective for them too. It is my opinion, just like you have opinions and how you think God has opinions. I argue that God is bad as he has a reputation of terminating people's lives against their wishes unjustly, amongst other aberrations.
Were they "good teachers and mentors" because they did well when teaching you, or because what they taught you were "good" morals?"
Both it seems. Good books, my family, internet articles and other forum members have added to this quiet a lot.
When it comes to the actions of God, what you think of as "bad", "unjust", or "aberrations" are all things that evoke pretty strong emotive reactions from you for what is merely an "opinion". Why such conviction when denouncing God, or hurling vitriol at Christians for what you ultimately view as an opinion? Someone may enjoy vanilla over chocolate ice cream, but they probably wouldn't argue on an internet forum for days or years on end with the chocolate-eaters.
I guess it's venting and a sense of leaving some of my thoughts with others. KTR and others here share similar views on this I think.
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

Claire
Posts: 1034
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: Ep 25, "Guardian Angels" and justice

Post by Claire » Thu Mar 14, 2019 3:21 am

SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:...for morality to be truly objective, it must exist apart from human assessment. It can't be shown that it does, hence it remains subjective.
But, like I've said before, the existence of some things can be proven by the effect it has on the world around us, and in this case on human beings. We base legal systems and codes of conduct on morality, and teach morals to our children. And, not because "people think this way is good right now, so act this way", but because humanity is born with an innate sense of morality that tells us there are good and evil in the world. Our assessment may change what we see as moral action, but that is just our personal filtering of it based on our own experiences and understanding, so we're not always right in our judgement. In the way that we perceive light, a phenomenon existing outside of us, through our eyes and interpreted by our brain, but not seeing the full spectrum of light, we see morality in a limited way as well.
Correct, it's subjective in that way.
But, the actual true nature of it is objective. It exists despite our thoughts and experiences of it.
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:And, what would you know about what's "good" or "just" when you believe morality is subjective? You may as well just say it's your opinion, but can't argue whether God does good or bad.
I know a lot about what is good or just because I have had good teachers and mentors. It was subjective for them too. It is my opinion, just like you have opinions and how you think God has opinions. I argue that God is bad as he has a reputation of terminating people's lives against their wishes unjustly, amongst other aberrations.
Were they "good teachers and mentors" because they did well when teaching you, or because what they taught you were "good" morals?"
SEG wrote:Both it seems. Good books, my family, internet articles and other forum members have added to this quiet a lot.
So, they weren't really teaching you how to be good, they were just teaching you, and you decided "Sure, that sounds like it's morally sound, but who knows? Human reason is flawed, but it's good enough here, and my reason is telling me to follow them despite there being nothing objective for my reason to use as a beacon for doing the right thing."
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:When it comes to the actions of God, what you think of as "bad", "unjust", or "aberrations" are all things that evoke pretty strong emotive reactions from you for what is merely an "opinion". Why such conviction when denouncing God, or hurling vitriol at Christians for what you ultimately view as an opinion? Someone may enjoy vanilla over chocolate ice cream, but they probably wouldn't argue on an internet forum for days or years on end with the chocolate-eaters.
I guess it's venting and a sense of leaving some of my thoughts with others.
C'mon, Pinoke. With how easily you just lied, I see your teacher/mentor is Honest John, not Jiminy Cricket.

“Hi-diddle-dee-dee, a liar's life for me!”
SEG wrote:Good or right broadly would be whatever promotes your well-being or other's well being without impacting on other people or the environment and makes humanity thrive. Bad or wrong broadly would be anything that harms others or the environment or hinders humanity thriving. They are different for all people and have no need for any deities. John Rawls does a good job of explaining his views on it.
In the first half you're speaking as though there's an objective morality, but then you try to pivot back to saying morality is subjective by halfheartedly tacking "they are different for all people" at the end.

You can't have it both ways.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1688
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Ep 25, "Guardian Angels" and justice

Post by SEG » Thu Mar 14, 2019 1:13 pm

Claire wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 3:21 am
But, the actual true nature of it is objective. It exists despite our thoughts and experiences of it.
So what is this "actual true nature of it"? How do you know that it's true?
Claire wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 3:21 am
So, they weren't really teaching you how to be good, they were just teaching you, and you decided "Sure, that sounds like it's morally sound, but who knows? Human reason is flawed, but it's good enough here, and my reason is telling me to follow them despite there being nothing objective for my reason to use as a beacon for doing the right thing."
No, they were teaching me to be good as we both perceive it. Just like you and your imagined God perceive goodness. His opinions according to you have quite a few problems.
Claire wrote:When it comes to the actions of God, what you think of as "bad", "unjust", or "aberrations" are all things that evoke pretty strong emotive reactions from you for what is merely an "opinion". Why such conviction when denouncing God, or hurling vitriol at Christians for what you ultimately view as an opinion? Someone may enjoy vanilla over chocolate ice cream, but they probably wouldn't argue on an internet forum for days or years on end with the chocolate-eaters.
My opinions are open ended and can change with new information. Your religious commandments on your god's opinions are not flexible and this brings you problems.
I guess it's venting and a sense of leaving some of my thoughts with others.
C'mon, Pinoke. With how easily you just lied, I see your teacher/mentor is Honest John, not Jiminy Cricket.
Would you ever lie Claire? I bet you would if you are a caring person.
SEG wrote:Good or right broadly would be whatever promotes your well-being or other's well being without impacting on other people or the environment and makes humanity thrive. Bad or wrong broadly would be anything that harms others or the environment or hinders humanity thriving. They are different for all people and have no need for any deities. John Rawls does a good job of explaining his views on it.
In the first half you're speaking as though there's an objective morality,
Incorrect, I would never say that!
but then you try to pivot back to saying morality is subjective by halfheartedly tacking "they are different for all people" at the end.
Correct, morals are different for all people.
You can't have it both ways.
Neither can you or your imagined god. Where did he get his nature? Did he decide what it was, or was it made for him?
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

Claire
Posts: 1034
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: Ep 25, "Guardian Angels" and justice

Post by Claire » Fri Mar 15, 2019 3:27 am

SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:But, the actual true nature of it is objective. It exists despite our thoughts and experiences of it.
So what is this "actual true nature of it"? How do you know that it's true?
Morality's true nature is that it's a spiritual construct designed by God, hence an innate sense of morality within each person's soul. This is why the very idea of virtuous and moral action is found throughout humanity. God is aware and understands that there's individuals, or certain groups of people, who are wrong in what they perceive to be moral, but He'll reward those who have a good will which drives their actions, even if those actions stem from faulty morality. As far as how I know there's truly objective morality, even people who don't believe in objective morality make moral decisions, prove there's a moral truth outside of them that they somewhat base their own morality on.
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:So, they weren't really teaching you how to be good, they were just teaching you, and you decided "Sure, that sounds like it's morally sound, but who knows? Human reason is flawed, but it's good enough here, and my reason is telling me to follow them despite there being nothing objective for my reason to use as a beacon for doing the right thing."
No, they were teaching me to be good as we both perceive it. Just like you and your imagined God perceive goodness. His opinions according to you have quite a few problems.
No, not according to me, because I never said God's "opinions" have quite a few problems. And, how did you decide that anything your teachers/mentors taught you had any moral value?
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:When it comes to the actions of God, what you think of as "bad", "unjust", or "aberrations" are all things that evoke pretty strong emotive reactions from you for what is merely an "opinion". Why such conviction when denouncing God, or hurling vitriol at Christians for what you ultimately view as an opinion? Someone may enjoy vanilla over chocolate ice cream, but they probably wouldn't argue on an internet forum for days or years on end with the chocolate-eaters.
I guess it's venting and a sense of leaving some of my thoughts with others.
C'mon, Pinoke. With how easily you just lied, I see your teacher/mentor is Honest John, not Jiminy Cricket.

“Hi-diddle-dee-dee, a liar's life for me!”
SEG wrote:Would you ever lie Claire? I bet you would if you are a caring person. My opinions are open ended and can change with new information. Your religious commandments on your god's opinions are not flexible and this brings you problems.
There's a difference between lying on the spot, flip flopping between different beliefs out of convenience, and truly changing beliefs based on new information. And, that doesn't include lying just because you have nothing else to say.
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:Good or right broadly would be whatever promotes your well-being or other's well being without impacting on other people or the environment and makes humanity thrive. Bad or wrong broadly would be anything that harms others or the environment or hinders humanity thriving. They are different for all people and have no need for any deities. John Rawls does a good job of explaining his views on it.
In the first half you're speaking as though there's an objective morality, but then you try to pivot back to saying morality is subjective by halfheartedly tacking "they are different for all people" at the end.
Correct, morals are different for all people.
You also spoke generally about how what's good/right is what promotes the thriving of all humanity and environment, and what does not is bad/wrong, indicating there's an objective morality, which you deny exists. Pick a lane -- morality is either subjective, or there is an objective morality, but people's perception of that morality is subjective.

:popcorn:
SEG wrote:Where did he get his nature? Did he decide what it was, or was it made for him?
God's nature wasn't made for Him because He always was. His existence, with no beginning or end, is currently a mystery. But, that doesn't mean it'll always be so, because one day we'll be with Him in Heaven, and therefore no longer bound to our Earthly state of being, hence capable of comprehending certain truths we couldn't before.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1688
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Ep 25, "Guardian Angels" and justice

Post by SEG » Fri Mar 15, 2019 12:51 pm

Claire wrote:But, the actual true nature of it is objective. It exists despite our thoughts and experiences of it.
SEG wrote:So what is this "actual true nature of it"? How do you know that it's true?
Claire wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 3:27 am
Morality's true nature is that it's a spiritual construct designed by God,

Well, how do you know that?
As far as how I know there's truly objective morality, even people who don't believe in objective morality make moral decisions, prove there's a moral truth outside of them that they somewhat base their own morality on.
So you are saying that: "even people who don't believe in objective morality make moral decisions" which is correct, but it doesn't prove there's a moral truth outside of them that they somewhat base their own morality on. It may mean that they just have their own set of morals, I certainly do and I don't believe that they must have come from somewhere else. Where is your link that proves me wrong?
Claire wrote:So, they weren't really teaching you how to be good, they were just teaching you, and you decided "Sure, that sounds like it's morally sound, but who knows? Human reason is flawed, but it's good enough here, and my reason is telling me to follow them despite there being nothing objective for my reason to use as a beacon for doing the right thing."
SEG wrote:No, they were teaching me to be good as we both perceive it. Just like you and your imagined God perceive goodness. His opinions according to you have quite a few problems.
No, not according to me, because I never said God's "opinions" have quite a few problems.
I didn't say you did, I said his personal opinions have quiet a few problems. According to your belief in a personal god ( who I say has opinions)
And, how did you decide that anything your teachers/mentors taught you had any moral value?
By the same way you decide of your god. If his moral values were opposing yours you wouldn't want to worship him would you?
SEG wrote:Would you ever lie Claire? I bet you would if you are a caring person. My opinions are open ended and can change with new information. Your religious commandments on your god's opinions are not flexible and this brings you problems.
There's a difference between lying on the spot, flip flopping between different beliefs out of convenience, and truly changing beliefs based on new information. And, that doesn't include lying just because you have nothing else to say.
You didn't answer the question. Would you ever lie Claire?
SEG wrote:Correct, morals are different for all people.
You also spoke generally about how what's good/right is what promotes the thriving of all humanity and environment, and what does not is bad/wrong, indicating there's an objective morality, which you deny exists. Pick a lane -- morality is either subjective, or there is an objective morality, but people's perception of that morality is subjective.
There's no universal objective morality. If there were your god would be subject to it and everyone would believe in the same morals.
SEG wrote:Where did he get his nature? Did he decide what it was, or was it made for him?
God's nature wasn't made for Him because He always was.
How do you know that? If this is true, then he must have chosen his nature. If he didn't choose his nature, he hasn't got free will or someone made it for him.
His existence, with no beginning or end, is currently a mystery. But, that doesn't mean it'll always be so, because one day we'll be with Him in Heaven, and therefore no longer bound to our Earthly state of being, hence capable of comprehending certain truths we couldn't before.
How do you know that? Let me guess, God told you and it's in the Bible so it must be true?
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1688
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Ep 25, "Guardian Angels" and justice

Post by SEG » Sat Mar 16, 2019 2:10 am

Claire wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 3:27 am
His existence, with no beginning or end, is currently a mystery.
His non-existence, with no beginning or end, is currently a non-mystery. Ask any atheist. His existence has the exactly same amount of verifiable evidence of millions of other gods, fairies, elves, goblins, spirits, ghosts and poltergeists. NONE. Zip, Nada.
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

Claire
Posts: 1034
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: Ep 25, "Guardian Angels" and justice

Post by Claire » Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:02 am

SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:Morality's true nature is that it's a spiritual construct designed by God, hence an innate sense of morality within each person's soul. This is why the very idea of virtuous and moral action is found throughout humanity. God is aware and understands that there's individuals, or certain groups of people, who are wrong in what they perceive to be moral, but He'll reward those who have a good will which drives their actions, even if those actions stem from faulty morality. As far as how I know there's truly objective morality, even people who don't believe in objective morality make moral decisions, prove there's a moral truth outside of them that they somewhat base their own morality on.
So you are saying that: "even people who don't believe in objective morality make moral decisions" which is correct, but it doesn't prove there's a moral truth outside of them that they somewhat base their own morality on. It may mean that they just have their own set of morals, I certainly do and I don't believe that they must have come from somewhere else. Where is your link that proves me wrong?
The fact you can use your reason to determine what's right and wrong in the first place, while being taught by others and observing the world, shows that it isn't just us simply following what we're told. And, that there's a soul within us that can help determine if something actually seems morally right -- you can also refer to it as your conscience. Also, morality didn't just come to humanity over time without a definite beginning. When God created the first men, He gave them a soul, hence an innate sense of morality, and every human being since has also received a soul, and is taught what's moral and immoral, but they also exercise their reason when it comes to discerning what they're taught. No matter what they believe as morally right or wrong, because God understands man's reasoning is faulty, it's our will to either do good or bad that He takes into account.
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:When it comes to the actions of God, what you think of as "bad", "unjust", or "aberrations" are all things that evoke pretty strong emotive reactions from you for what is merely an "opinion". Why such conviction when denouncing God, or hurling vitriol at Christians for what you ultimately view as an opinion? Someone may enjoy vanilla over chocolate ice cream, but they probably wouldn't argue on an internet forum for days or years on end with the chocolate-eaters.
I guess it's venting and a sense of leaving some of my thoughts with others.
C'mon, Pinoke. With how easily you just lied, I see your teacher/mentor is Honest John, not Jiminy Cricket.

“Hi-diddle-dee-dee, a liar's life for me!”
SEG wrote:Would you ever lie Claire?
The difference, whether I would lie or not, is that I wouldn't stand by my lie, even though I'm obviously being untruthful, and there's not a noble intention behind it.
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:And, how did you decide that anything your teachers/mentors taught you had any moral value?
By the same way you decide of your god. If his moral values were opposing yours you wouldn't want to worship him would you?
Do you worship your teachers/mentors? And, my moral values are shaped by my belief in God. As far as making moral decisions, I am given that ability by Him, just as you are.
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:...morals are different for all people.
You also spoke generally about how what's good/right is what promotes the thriving of all humanity and environment, and what does not is bad/wrong, indicating there's an objective morality, which you deny exists. Pick a lane -- morality is either subjective, or there is an objective morality, but people's perception of that morality is subjective.
There's no universal objective morality. If there were your god would be subject to it and everyone would believe in the same morals.
"Universal objective morality" is a redundant statement. So, adding the word "universal" doesn't lend any weight to your argument. And, just because it's a universally applied morality, it doesn't mean it's universally followed or practiced by humanity. Also, it's God who applies morality universally in the first place.

Do you stand by your belief that what's good/right is what promotes the thriving of all humanity and environment, and what does not is bad/wrong? If so, then that's to believe in an objective morality.
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:Where did he get his nature? Did he decide what it was, or was it made for him?
God's nature wasn't made for Him because He always was.
How do you know that? If this is true, then he must have chosen his nature. If he didn't choose his nature, he hasn't got free will or someone made it for him.
You've answered your own question, since His nature wasn't made for Him. And, I researched and believe certain information I've come across, just as you or anyone else does.
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:His existence, with no beginning or end, is currently a mystery. But, that doesn't mean it'll always be so, because one day we'll be with Him in Heaven, and therefore no longer bound to our Earthly state of being, hence capable of comprehending certain truths we couldn't before.
How do you know that?
I researched and believe certain information I've come across, just as you or anyone else does.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1688
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Ep 25, "Guardian Angels" and justice

Post by SEG » Mon Mar 18, 2019 6:13 am

Claire wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:02 am
The fact you can use your reason to determine what's right and wrong in the first place, while being taught by others and observing the world, shows that it isn't just us simply following what we're told. And, that there's a soul within us that can help determine if something actually seems morally right
That's where you are going wrong, there isn't any evidence of any "soul".
SEG wrote:Would you ever lie Claire?
Claire wrote:The difference, whether I would lie or not, is that I wouldn't stand by my lie, even though I'm obviously being untruthful, and there's not a noble intention behind it.
Like when you made your sock puppet come to life like Pinocchio? Or put up that selfie photo?
Claire wrote:And, how did you decide that anything your teachers/mentors taught you had any moral value?
SEG wrote:By the same way you decide of your god. If his moral values were opposing yours you wouldn't want to worship him would you?
Claire wrote:Do you worship your teachers/mentors?
No, but I respected them as caring, intelligent people, because I could see their interaction with others and knew of their qualifications. You can't get that with invisible, silent things that have no evidence of their existence.
Claire wrote:"Universal objective morality" is a redundant statement. So, adding the word "universal" doesn't lend any weight to your argument. And, just because it's a universally applied morality, it doesn't mean it's universally followed or practiced by humanity. Also, it's God who applies morality universally in the first place.
You need to stop putting words in my mouth again! I said:
Bad = Something that causes unnecessary suffering and diminishes well being.

Good = Something that is helpful for the flourishing of humanity, causes no harm to yourself, others or the environment and minimises pain and suffering.
Claire wrote:God's nature wasn't made for Him because He always was.
SEG wrote:How do you know that? If this is true, then he must have chosen his nature. If he didn't choose his nature, he hasn't got free will or someone made it for him.
Well, you answered your own question, since His nature wasn't made for Him. And, I researched and believe certain information I've come across, just as you or anyone else does.
Then if he must have chosen his nature, he could have picked an evil nature or something that seems to be good, but is detrimental to humanity. So if he exists, his nature is arbitrary. Also that means his "nature" is outside of himself.
Claire wrote:His existence, with no beginning or end, is currently a mystery. But, that doesn't mean it'll always be so, because one day we'll be with Him in Heaven, and therefore no longer bound to our Earthly state of being, hence capable of comprehending certain truths we couldn't before
SEG wrote:How do you know that?
Claire wrote:I researched and believe certain information I've come across, just as you or anyone else does.
Flawed sources such as the Bible and MV don't count.
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

Post Reply