Can objective moral values exist without God?

Originally posted by Darfius
Well at least you admit that every nonbeliever is the same as Hitler to you. I appreciate your honesty, however disgusting.

Not the same to me. The same to God. If you sin once you're as bad as Hitler in His eyes. But only if you do not ask for forgiveness. Because then you place yourself on a pedastal above Him.

Originally posted by Maustrauser

Gee Darfius you believe in a very odd god.

Hitler's mania leads to the death of over 20,000,000 civilians and combatants in WWII and Mrs Tweedie, pinched a small can of baked beans from the local store because she was hungry. And in your god's eyes these two people are the same...

What planet is your god on?

So even though they are more intelligent, and aren't insane, it doesn't follow that they've used their superior intellect to determine that Christianity is more rational than atheism? I don't follow you.

Better to say that they misused their superior intellect. Of course, some of them (e.g. Kant, Newton) were so brainwashed as children that it would require more effort from their intellect to reject childhood superstitions than it would for most other people. Moreover there are equally superior intellects who have come up with all sorts of other answers than xtianity. The point is being more intelligent does not make everything you believe rational. The case must rest on its own merits.

For example, consider William Lane Craig. He is often mentioned as a brilliant mind of xtianity. Really he is one of the few decent minds of fundamentalist evagelical xtianity, but nonetheless, he himself admits that he did not come to Christianity on its own rational merits. First, he accepted xtianity upon emotion. On faith, he then believed that his god could do anything. Once he had decided his god could do anything, then miracles and surface contradictions became easy. God just did it because he can becauseWLC believed he can. There's nothing logical here, and William Lane Craigs being a reasonably intelligent person does not change that fact.

Is the God of the OT REALLY cruel? Or is He enforcing justice directly rather than through Jesus Christ? You see, since God's moral compass is above and beyond our own, we may not understand some of the actions He took, but since we know He is all good and all just, we have to realize it was for the best. Again, how we 'feel' about His actions doesn't make them right or wrong.

Uh oh, now you're back to Choice 2. God appeals to an independent standard of good and evil. Basically, you are taking on faith that genocide, slavery, rape, infanticide, racism, and all sorts of other tortures and cruelties are OK. When God does it, it is good. Again Euthyphro's Dilemma is rearing its ugly head. You make ridiculous excuses for your god's behavior. I don't. I hold him accountable (figuratively of course since he's not real).

No. It is not the ability to be. According to Merriam-Webster, it is defined as being "present in all places at all times."

Except in the place called Hell.

Hell is a state of mind. Not a place. It's a state of being seperated entirely from God. It's not like you enter a door and you're in hell.

Did you ever think of starting your own cult? This has no Biblical foundation. Your imagination is a agile as it is sick.

God cannot be seperate from God. That's a logical inconsistency.

Exactly. This is the contradiction that arises from both claiming that God is omnipresent and that God is not in Hell. Proof by contradiction. QED.

Of course, you've conveniently redefined Hell. Until you provide some evidence, Biblical or otherwise, for this interpretation of Hell, we are all safe in assuming it to be nothing more than a spontaneous, unsubstantiated evasive maneuver.

Presumably Satan hadn't been cast out of Heaven yet. Perhaps God still thought he would repent.

Repent from what? If he had sin to repent from, then he could not be in the presence of God. You are making incredible extra-Biblical leaps. Any "True xtian" pastor would have thrown you out of his church for preaching heresy by now.

Jesus was fully God and yet fully human. The human part of him could stand the sin.

And the fully God part of him!???

Darfius, I propose a test. When you write a statement to harmonize an apparent contradiction in your thinking. Read over it. Ask yourself, "Is there a glaring hole in my statement?" If the answer is "Yes." Then erase it and write something more intelligent.

Quit insulting my intelligence please. I am not parroting anyone. It's just there aren't many ways to share the Truth.

Darfius, you insult your own intelligence with your posts. I simply record observations. As you say, "There aren't many ways to share the [t]ruth."

Haha. Your hubris is insane. OK, tel. Make a better universe for us. Same test I gave rwing.

Classic argument from Kreeft in The Case for Faith. "Every evil you take away limits our freedom." This begs the question "So what?"

I can think of a better universe. Leave the universe exactly as it is with one exception: No one can molest a child. It would be physically impossible to do this sort of evil, like using only our own bodies to fly to the sun and extinguish it or drink the entire ocean. There are many things that are physically impossible. In my better universe, child molestation would be one of these.

Now you've already claimed that all non-believers are basically Hitler. Would you care to make "the Case for Child Rape"?

We have radically different definitions of sadistic.

Only one small, yet significant, difference. I call some one with perfect foresight who designs and introduces, into an otherwise perfect state of being, a world that punishes temporal transgressions with eternal torture sadistic. You call that some one the paragon of righteousness.

Non sequitir. Those other three have NO evidence they exist.

They have as much evidence as your god does, well, except the IPU I suppose.

It was a poor analogy. I expect better from you.

It was an excellent analogy. It was told from the point of view of an unbeliever. To be a successful student of literature, you are going to need to learn about perspective. Just another tip from some one who's already been there.

Uh, how about "Sorry God, it turns out you ARE smarter than me. I'll put my trust in you, my Creator, rather than my own finite abilities."

Sorry, I don't go in for intellectual sterilization. Hey, it's a free country though. You can believe what you will.

Not the same to me. The same to God.

Oh to your god? Well that's strike two for him. BTW are you in disagreement with your god on this issue? If it is the same to him, shouldn't it be the same to you? I take that you desire to conform to the mind of your god. Hitler and all other non-believers are the same to you. Sick.

Intellectual honesty? Right, Mr. "Everything came from Nothing".

Did I ever say that? No. Intellectual honesty indeed! Let me tell you something else about the study of literature: purposefully misrepresenting or distorting an author's material will get you expelled. This happened to an acquaintance of mine back in undergrad. You better watch it Dar. I'd hate to see you thrown out for lying.

Better to say that they misused their superior intellect. Of course, some of them (e.g. Kant, Newton) were so brainwashed as children that it would require more effort from their intellect to reject childhood superstitions than it would for most other people. Moreover there are equally superior intellects who have come up with all sorts of other answers than xtianity. The point is being more intelligent does not make everything you believe rational. The case must rest on its own merits.

Nothing but the opinions of a bias unbeliever.

For example, consider William Lane Craig. He is often mentioned as a brilliant mind of xtianity. Really he is one of the few decent minds of fundamentalist evagelical xtianity, but nonetheless, he himself admits that he did not come to Christianity on its own rational merits. First, he accepted xtianity upon emotion. On faith, he then believed that his god could do anything. Once he had decided his god could do anything, then miracles and surface contradictions became easy. God just did it because he can becauseWLC believed he can. There's nothing logical here, and William Lane Craigs being a reasonably intelligent person does not change that fact.

So are you claiming that William Lane Craig deludes himself to cling to Cristianity? Or are you claiming that if in fact God does exist, that miracles would be impossible for Him?

Uh oh, now you're back to Choice 2. God appeals to an independent standard of good and evil. Basically, you are taking on faith that genocide, slavery, rape, infanticide, racism, and all sorts of other tortures and cruelties are OK. When God does it, it is good. Again Euthyphro's Dilemma is rearing its ugly head. You make ridiculous excuses for your god's behavior. I don't. I hold him accountable (figuratively of course since he's not real).

When did God condone rape? Or genocide? Or racism? Would you have prefered if the Israelites had killed POW's rather than make them slaves?

Except in the place called Hell.

Hell isn't a place. Space and time were created at the beginning of the universe. Heaven and Hell are not 'places' as we know them. One is God and one is a seperation from God.

Did you ever think of starting your own cult? This has no Biblical foundation. Your imagination is a agile as it is sick.

It's all in Genesis. 'Space' and 'time' were created in the beginning.

Exactly. This is the contradiction that arises from both claiming that God is omnipresent and that God is not in Hell. Proof by contradiction. QED.

I still see no contradiction, except when you project your limitations onto God. I try not to be so fallacious.

Of course, you've conveniently redefined Hell. Until you provide some evidence, Biblical or otherwise, for this interpretation of Hell, we are all safe in assuming it to be nothing more than a spontaneous, unsubstantiated evasive maneuver.

I would argue that those who believe Hell is a place you can travel to are morons who have been brainwashed. It is explained quite succinctly in the Bible that it is 'eternal seperation from God'.

Repent from what? If he had sin to repent from, then he could not be in the presence of God. You are making incredible extra-Biblical leaps. Any "True xtian" pastor would have thrown you out of his church for preaching heresy by now.

I note you didn't address my other claim, that Satan was not necessarily in Heaven.

And the fully God part of him!???

The fully God part was shielded by the full human part. I do not see how it is difficult to imagine that your spirit is within your flesh.

Darfius, I propose a test. When you write a statement to harmonize an apparent contradiction in your thinking. Read over it. Ask yourself, "Is there a glaring hole in my statement?" If the answer is "Yes." Then erase it and write something more intelligent.

As I do not believe you are more intelligent than me, I see no reason to believe I am guilty of your implication.

Darfius, you insult your own intelligence with your posts. I simply record observations. As you say, "There aren't many ways to share the [t]ruth."

Opinion.

Classic argument from Kreeft in The Case for Faith. "Every evil you take away limits our freedom." This begs the question "So what?"

So you wouldn't mind if you were a robot with the ability to think, but never act on your thoughts? In other words, you would rather be a quadriplegic than risk pricking your finger? Interesting.

I can think of a better universe. Leave the universe exactly as it is with one exception: No one can molest a child. It would be physically impossible to do this sort of evil, like using only our own bodies to fly to the sun and extinguish it or drink the entire ocean. There are many things that are physically impossible. In my better universe, child molestation would be one of these.

So would an invisible force field shoot up around the child everytime an adult approached him or her? How would this be regulated to allow for a show of healthy affection? Or to feed? Would this 'force field' be intelligent? How would this new, intelligent being react to be forced to do our bidding to keep us from evil?

Now you've already claimed that all non-believers are basically Hitler. Would you care to make "the Case for Child Rape"?

Since the greatest sin is denying God, in that light, yes, all non-believers have sinned the greatest sin. However, on earth, Hitler did more evil than most.

Only one small, yet significant, difference. I call some one with perfect foresight who designs and introduces, into an otherwise perfect state of being, a world that punishes temporal transgressions with eternal torture sadistic. You call that some one the paragon of righteousness.

What you do not understand is that people will be no more inclined to love God after they die than they were before. Submit to Him? Of course. But submission was not what He created us for.

They have as much evidence as your god does, well, except the IPU I suppose.

Really? Are there 2 billion 'Zeusists' in the world? Does this 'Zeus' have a holy book written by several dozen authors over thousands of years on 3 continents which lacks contradictions? What do you define as 'evidence'?

It was an excellent analogy. It was told from the point of view of an unbeliever. To be a successful student of literature, you are going to need to learn about perspective. Just another tip from some one who's already been there.

I know of perspective. However, as per usual with atheists, you cannot propose a logical argument until YOU look at perspective. Theists are FORCED to consider naturalist explanations, but we are open to God being a possibility, something atheists are not. God explains the scientific evidence better than a more far-fetched naturalist excuse, and only bias prevents Him from being the explanation.

Sorry, I don't go in for intellectual sterilization. Hey, it's a free country though. You can believe what you will.

Admitting someone is smarter than you is being intellectually sterile? Well then you're already guilty of that!

Oh to your god? Well that's strike two for him. BTW are you in disagreement with your god on this issue? If it is the same to him, shouldn't it be the same to you? I take that you desire to conform to the mind of your god. Hitler and all other non-believers are the same to you. Sick.

No, I was yielding to His higher authority. Of course I agree with Him. He is worthy of praise from all of us.

Did I ever say that? No. Intellectual honesty indeed! Let me tell you something else about the study of literature: purposefully misrepresenting or distorting an author's material will get you expelled. This happened to an acquaintance of mine back in undergrad. You better watch it Dar. I'd hate to see you thrown out for lying.

Then quit hiding behind anonymity whilst attacking my viewpoints and make clear your own! What explains the universe better and more clearly than God, tel?

Originally posted by Darfius
Hell isn't a place. Space and time were created at the beginning of the universe. Heaven and Hell are not 'places' as we know them. One is God and one is a seperation from God.

Originally posted by Nemesio
How can a being claim that God is omnipresent and that one
can be not in the presence of God (separation)?

An even BIGGER GOD created the god of the bible: refute

Originally posted by Nemesio
Huh? How can a being claim that God is omnipresent and that one
can be not in the presence of God (separation)? Omnipresent
means present in all places (always-present). How can one be
separate from a omnipresent being?

Don't you see a problem here, Darfius?

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Huh? How can a being claim that God is omnipresent and that one
can be not in the presence of God (separation)? Omnipresent
means present in all places (always-present). How can one be
separate from a omnipresent being?

Don't you see a problem here, Darfius?

Nemesio

Nothing but the opinions of a bias unbeliever.

Uh . . . it's pretty simple Darfius. It's mind-boggling that you would even contest it. Just because a smart person says something does not make it true.

So are you claiming that William Lane Craig deludes himself to cling to Cristianity? Or are you claiming that if in fact God does exist, that miracles would be impossible for Him?

I am pointing out that he admits that his conversion to xtianity had nothing to do with evidence or rationality. It had to do with emotion. He then attempted to rationalize contradictions and miracles once he already accepted that God existed. Therefore, regardless of how intelligent he is, his statements on the matter are not rational.

When did God condone rape? Or genocide? Or racism? Would you have prefered if the Israelites had killed POW's rather than make them slaves?

I would really rather not point this stuff out again. I've written it before somewhere on here. As I said earlier in this thread, just take a casual stroll through Deut. You'll find examples of all of these.

What do we do with POW's today? You see you have presented a false dichotomy. There are more options than just kill or enslave.

Hell isn't a place. Space and time were created at the beginning of the universe. Heaven and Hell are not 'places' as we know them. One is God and one is a seperation from God.

Ok so when you say God is omnipresent what do you mean. It seems he can't be in Heaven because Heaven is not a place to which 'being' in the omnipresence sense has meaning. The same goes for Hell. All of Creation is filled with sin so God cannot be there either.

Where in the hell is he then? I suppose nowhere 🙂

I still see no contradiction, except when you project your limitations onto God. I try not to be so fallacious.

Of course, you don't. Im just running your god through logic. Your god doesn't come out the other end.

I would argue that those who believe Hell is a place you can travel to are morons who have been brainwashed. It is explained quite succinctly in the Bible that it is 'eternal seperation from God'.

First, quote this verse for us please. Second, quote where it says that Hell is a "state of mind." Heresy.

I note you didn't address my other claim, that Satan was not necessarily in Heaven.

Am I to read your mind now Darfius? All you said was the following: "Presumably Satan hadn't been cast out of Heaven yet. Perhaps God still thought he would repent." Do you even know what you write?

The fully God part was shielded by the full human part. I do not see how it is difficult to imagine that your spirit is within your flesh.

Did you get your god out of an X-men comic book? You are so far afield from the Bible that you've wandered into a Star Trek episode. Mental force fields up!

As I do not believe you are more intelligent than me, I see no reason to believe I am guilty of your implication.

Well that's another thing about which you'd be wrong. My test was that you review your statements for obvious logical errors. I said nothing about guessing my intelligence. Perhaps the above was Freudian slip? Insecure Darfius?

Opinion.

Finally you got something right. Give him a cookie.

So you wouldn't mind if you were a robot with the ability to think, but never act on your thoughts? In other words, you would rather be a quadriplegic than risk pricking your finger? Interesting.

Settle down Darfius. Your brain is melting. These people would still be able think. They could use free will to select their food, lovers, etc. They just couldn't select an evil act. Evil acts wouldn't exist. It's not difficult Darfius.

So would an invisible force field shoot up around the child everytime an adult approached him or her? How would this be regulated to allow for a show of healthy affection? Or to feed? Would this 'force field' be intelligent? How would this new, intelligent being react to be forced to do our bidding to keep us from evil?

I see now how you can be so enslaved in your cult. Sure let's use your force field idea. I would make it a law of nature that as soon as a person (adult or otherwise) had the intention to touch a child for sexual gratification a small force field would surround the child. It would prevent only the potential child molester from touching the child. Others could still interact with the child normally. Once any intention of molesting the child left the person's mind the force field would disappear. This is just one of a great many improvements.

Since the greatest sin is denying God, in that light, yes, all non-believers have sinned the greatest sin. However, on earth, Hitler did more evil than most.

So every non-believer is basically as evil as Hitler. We've got it. Why does your god think it better to have child molesters in his world but not sun extinguishers?

What you do not understand is that people will be no more inclined to love God after they die than they were before.

Another extra-Biblical conjecture. You do not know this. Once god stops hiding, and I know that he is real, then maybe I'll realize that he's really a nice guy and fall in love with him.

Really? Are there 2 billion 'Zeusists' in the world? Does this 'Zeus' have a holy book written by several dozen authors over thousands of years on 3 continents which lacks contradictions? What do you define as 'evidence'?

The number of Zeusists hardly matters (Bandwagon Fallacy). There have been millions in the past, and there are still thousands today. There have been plenty of holy relics and writings that speak of Zeus. Of course any writings on Zeus can be harmonized with the same begging-and-pleading methods that you use with your Bible. As far as evidence goes, there is really no good evidence for the personal existence your god, Zeus, or Thor. They are make-believe.

God explains the scientific evidence better than a more far-fetched naturalist excuse, and only bias prevents Him from being the explanation.

Ah so your god is the God of the Gaps too. The way you twist and wriggle you could make him explain the dimple on a cricket's behind.

Admitting someone is smarter than you is being intellectually sterile? Well then you're already guilty of that!

No. Admitting a make-believe person is smarter than me is intellectual sterilization.

No, I was yielding to His higher authority. Of course I agree with Him. He is worthy of praise from all of us.

Ok so non-believer = Hitler, and child rape is good. Got it, sicko.

Then quit hiding behind anonymity whilst attacking my viewpoints and make clear your own!

Why should I? I'm not the one going around condoning atrocities and accusing people of being like Hitler. Why throw pearls before swine?

What explains the universe better and more clearly than God, tel?

Most anything that exists for a start. Your god cannot explain anything because it's not real.

For those interested in reading a couple of serious debates on the topic of morality and theism/atheism:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=82069
"Resolved: Objective morality is only compatible with the atheistic worldview."
Atheistic apologist vs. Bible-inerrantist (Jason Gastrich)

and

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=82069
"Resolved: Objective morality could exist only if a god existed."

One atheists affirms, another opposes.

Originally posted by Darfius
Discuss