The Moral Argument for God's Existence

@ThinkOfOne

Actually it isn't. That you fail to understand the distinction speaks to a lack of critical thinking skills on your part.

You often fall back on saying this or that skill is deficient.
Reading skill, thinking skills, some other skill.

It is noted that you didn't explain the difference.
Is it beneath your lofty education level to bother?

I didn't say it did. Did you not understand the meaning of the phrase "As a side-effect"?

Do you understand the meaning of "the side effect is not terribly important here" ?

Be that as it may, the fallacy of the carm argument is that it is built upon circular reasoning.

I would have to review CARM's version of the argument.
However, you are hardly one to complain about circular reasoning.

Finding the beginning of your circle about what constitutes "Jesus during His ministry" has been dizzying.

You could have stopped us from circling around years ago by just confessing "during His ministry" means the things Jesus said that you agree with.

That fact that you couldn't bring yourself to be honest about that leads us in circles until today.

@thinkofone said
What about it?

Go ahead KJ, forumulate your best cogent argument that refutes what I posted.

"... provide an objective standard for interpretation of the Bible."

The things of God require God's Spirit within, nothing about scripture is for private
interpretation. If all you are doing is dancing around looking for an interpretation
that pleases you, you are never going to understand what the scriptures are telling
us.

1 Corinthians 2:11-13 English Standard Version (ESV)
11 For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. 13 And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.

2 Peter 1:19-21 English Standard Version (ESV)
19 And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, 20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. 21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

@dj2becker said
The Bible is not mentioned in any of the premises of the moral argument for God's existence. You are just using it to muddy the waters. Before commenting again try to educate yourself on what the argument is all about.

https://www.bethinking.org/morality/can-moral-objectivism-do-without-god

YOU try to "educate yourself on what the argument is all about".

How can you have possibly gotten so lost? In our discussion, I haven't refuting the OP.

I've been refuting what you wrote on page 6. That's what we've been arguing about. The following is my first post to you pertaining to that argument:

If you say that you do have an objective standard of morality, then where did you get this objective standard since an objective standard is one that is not based on your opinion or your experience?

If you say that you do have an objective standard of morality, then where did you get this objective standard since an objective standard is one that is not based on your opinion or your experience?

It certainly isn't the Bible since it's so widely open to interpretation. Over the centuries Christians have been on completely opposite sides as to topics such as slavery, capital punishment, race, women, LGBT, etc. The list goes on and on. People interpret the Bible based on their own standards.

Start on page 6 and read through our entire discussion. See of you can wrap your mind around what we've been arguing about.

@thinkofone said
YOU try to "educate yourself on what the argument is all about".

How can you have possibly gotten so lost? In our discussion, I haven't refuting the OP.

I've been refuting what you wrote on page 6. That's what we've been arguing about. The following is my first post to you pertaining to that argument:
[quote][b]If you say that you do have an objective standard of m ...[text shortened]... d through our entire discussion. See of you can wrap your mind around what we've been arguing about.

On page 6 I asked someone a question that you simply parroted back at me...

Which of these 3 premises do you reject and why?

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist
2. Objective moral values do exist
3. Therefore, God exists

@dj2becker said
On page 6 I asked someone a question that you simply parroted back at me...

Which of these 3 premises do you reject and why?

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist
2. Objective moral values do exist
3. Therefore, God exists

On page 6 I asked someone a question that you simply parroted back at me...

Actually I did more than that.

Once again, "Start on page 6 and read through our entire discussion. See of you can wrap your mind around what we've been arguing about."

When you've finished that, see about formulating a logical refutation of the following:

The point you disingenuously continue to ignore is the fact that your interpretation of the Bible is VERY subjective. This is underscored by the fact that you are unable to provide an objective standard for interpretation of the Bible,

The Bible very widely open to interpretation. Over the centuries Christians have been on completely opposite sides as to topics such as slavery, capital punishment, race, women, LGBT, etc. The list goes on and on. People interpret the Bible based on their own subjective standard.

No objective standard for interpretation of the Bible. No objective moral standard.

Since you seem to need to have it spelled out for you:
You've been speaking of an objective moral standard for a very long time now as if the Bible gives you an objective moral standard that you can rely on. The fact is that it doesn't.

The point is that without an objective standard for interpretation of the Bible, you have no objective moral standard available to you through the Bible.

@kellyjay said
"... provide an objective standard for interpretation of the Bible."

The things of God require God's Spirit within, nothing about scripture is for private
interpretation. If all you are doing is dancing around looking for an interpretation
that pleases you, you are never going to understand what the scriptures are telling
us.

1 Corinthians 2:11-13 English Standard V ...[text shortened]... r produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Over the centuries Christians have been on completely opposite sides as to topics such as slavery, capital punishment, race, women, LGBT, etc. The list goes on and on. Presumably they've all claimed to have "God's Spirit within" and have come up with polar opposite answers.

Clearly claiming to have "God's Spirit within" does not "provide an objective standard for interpretation of the Bible".

@thinkofone said
Over the centuries Christians have been on completely opposite sides as to topics such as slavery, capital punishment, race, women, LGBT, etc. The list goes on and on. Presumably they've all claimed to have "God's Spirit within" and have come up with polar opposite answers.

Clearly claiming to have "God's Spirit within" does not "provide an objective standard for interpretation of the Bible".

No, there is One Lord, One Spirit, and one church. You seem to be under the illusion that everyone who caims the name of Jesus belongs to Him. Not everyone who says Lord will Jesus acknowledge before God and man. Do you have Jesus in your life, is He your Lord and Savior, or will you wilt again and refuse to acknowledge Him?

@kellyjay said
No, there is One Lord, One Spirit, and one church. You seem to be under the illusion that everyone who caims the name of Jesus belongs to Him. Not everyone who says Lord will Jesus acknowledge before God and man. Do you have Jesus in your life, is He your Lord and Savior, or will you wilt again and refuse to acknowledge Him?

You seem to have lost sight of the objective.

In your previous post you seemed to be asserting that having "God's Spirit with" provides "an objective standard for interpretation of the Bible".

Now you seem to be agreeing that claiming to have "God's Spirit within" does not "provide an objective standard for interpretation of the Bible".

If you are unable to provide an objective standard as to who truly has ""God's Spirit within" and who does not, then you still haven't provided "an objective standard for interpretation of the Bible". Do you have one?

@kellyjay said
If all we are hanging our hats
on something that is purely subjective, nothing about that can be used to prove
a point, proven points require a standard everyone agrees with so we can see the
right and wrong of any point, a common standard that is not subjective.

When you say "prove a point", what kind of thing are you talking about? You mean making a case in a court of law?

@kellyjay said
This makes the larger question is there a solution to differences of opinion besides
taking out those that disagree with one another?

Why is it a problem if people disagree with each other? They just get on with their lives surely.

@kellyjay said
If you think
for example you have the right to do X, you do it. Others may think X is evil and
therefore count all who do it evil through their actions. When those who have very
strong personal views mix with one another, can there really be a solution, a real
answer beyond arguments, fighting, and killing to stop the evil among us?

I think you are talking about laws here.

@fmf said
Why is it a problem if people disagree with each other? They just get on with their lives surely.

Not if eternal life is at stake.
Someone has to be right.
For believers.

@kellyjay said
Another group is
attacking another race, because for crimes in the past, their race were abused at
the hands of racists who thought their race was less than. Its going to be their
ancestors rising up on judgment day, accusing them of doing the same evil,
because if they knew it was wrong when it was done to them, it is still wrong, so
why are they doing it to others?

It's not quite clear what your moral stance is on this particular political disagreement in your country but I am sure you are entitled to your personal opinion about it. Meanwhile, your assertion that it will all be resolved in some supernatural way on "judgement day" is completely subjective. And that's fine. Nothing wrong with that.

@chaney3 said
Not if eternal life is at stake.
Someone has to be right.
For believers.

Conjecture about there being eternal life after death lies squarely in the realm of subjectivity.

@fmf said
Conjecture about there being eternal life after death lies squarely in the realm of subjectivity.

Not for believers.

I'm surprised that Dive doesn't call you out on this.

It would be refreshing if he did.