The Moral Argument for God's Existence

@Ghost-of-a-Duke

It would be advisable for you sir to accept that the creation story in the Bible is not a literal account and better spend your energies trying to balance human evolution with divine creation.

I don't think Genesis 1 and 2 is an exhaustive explanation or description of how God created everything.

If God meant to give us an exhaustive detailed account of how He created everything then maybe we would have been given 66 books just describing a single water molecule.

I don't take Genesis as explaining everything about the act of creation of the universe.

@sonship said
@Ghost-of-a-Duke
I don't think Genesis 1 and 2 is an exhaustive explanation or description of how God created everything.

You think!

@thinkofone said
That doesn't answer the question.

I've given you a few opportunities to answer the question. You keep side-stepping it. Here's yet another chance.

What's the standard for determining which interpretation [of the Bible as a whole] is NOT based on their own standard?

Give me a scenario of two contradictory interpretations.

@dj2becker said
Give me a scenario of two contradictory interpretations.

That's four times now that you've side-stepped the question. You've been given more than enough chances.

The reason that you are unable provide a standard for interpretation of the Bible is this: The Bible is so widely open to interpretation - as I said in my post to you at the top of page six. By its nature, interpretation of the Bible is subjective.

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

@thinkofone said
That's four times now that you've side-stepped the question. You've been given more than enough chances.

The reason that you are unable provide a standard for interpretation of the Bible is this: The Bible is so widely open to interpretation - as I said in my post to you at the top of page six. By its nature, interpretation of the Bible is subjective.

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

‘By its nature, interpretation of the Bible is subjective.No objective interpretation of the Bible. No objective moral standard.’

Is the above statement subjective or objective? If it is subjective how do you know that it is true?

@wolfgang59 said
1. There are many bibles containing different books.
(Individuals have to make their own subjective choice which to follow)

2. Even using the same bible different churches disagree on interpretation.
(Church leaders make their own subjective decisions.)

3. The books of the bible were originally written in Aramaic, Greek, Gobbledgook
then translated ( ...[text shortened]... i]subjective[/i] choice.

Now you have the audacity to claim objective morality from all of that!?

Give me any examples of translations that give a contradictory meaning.

@dj2becker said
Give me any examples of translations that give a contradictory meaning.

Omitting a verse entirely!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_verses_not_included_in_modern_English_translations

@wolfgang59 said
Omitting a verse entirely!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_verses_not_included_in_modern_English_translations

See no contradiction there.

@wolfgang59 said
Omitting a verse entirely!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_verses_not_included_in_modern_English_translations

If the omitted verse totally contradicted the entire message of the Bible you may have had a point.

@dj2becker said
‘By its nature, interpretation of the Bible is subjective.No objective interpretation of the Bible. No objective moral standard.’

Is the above statement subjective or objective? If it is subjective how do you know that it is true?

If you are able provide an objective standard for interpretation of the Bible, then provide it already. Thus far you've repeatedly side-stepped the question.

@thinkofone said
If you are able provide an objective standard for interpretation of the Bible, then provide it already. Thus far you've repeatedly side-stepped the question.

You may have had a point if the entire Bible were a poem. We both know it isn’t. Most of it is quite literal and easily understood.

@dj2becker said
You may have had a point if the entire Bible were a poem. We both know it isn’t. Most of it is quite literal and easily understood.

If you are able provide an objective standard for interpretation of the Bible, then provide it already. Thus far you've repeatedly side-stepped the question.

@thinkofone said
If you are able provide an objective standard for interpretation of the Bible, then provide it already. Thus far you've repeatedly side-stepped the question.

Do you need an objective standard to interpret the laws of your country?

@dj2becker said
Do you need an objective standard to interpret the laws of your country?

lol. You are unable to provide an objective standard for interpretation of the Bible. Just admit it already.

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

@dj2becker said
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?

How about you just go back and re-read those threads (plural) where we already had this exact discussion. It's not my problem that you seem simply ineducable when it comes to the topic of secular ethics.

And by the way, an objective standard of morality would be one not based on any opinion at all – including any opinions of your God, supposing He exists. Of course, you and sonship will just keep conveniently ignoring the fact that your meta-ethical views are properly classified as subjectivist. Alas, it's a fact nonetheless. And this fact makes it all the more humorous that you and Tweedledum go around extolling the virtues of your "objective" morality. Of course, you will follow up with some watered-down notion of 'objective' that just requires independence from opinions other than God (basically, Special Pleading 101 for your particular God); but, then, of course, you will run into the problem that secular ethical theories already entail that morality is thereby "objective" according to your very own definition. Again, it's not my problem that you guys cannot grasp this.

Lastly, you seem to labor under the delusion that questions constitute arguments. Either that, or it is just another aspect of your MO that you attempt burden-shifting vis-à-vis questions in lieu of supporting statements. You and Tweedledum are the ones trotting out the premise that "objective" morality necessitates God, as part of some broader theistic argument. So the burden is on you to actually support such a premise. In case you're still clueless, that means you need to provide some declarative sentences (not questions) that count toward showing the premise is more likely true than not. I'm fairly confident you have none. That's why you continually resort to lame tactics.