Incontrovertible proof God exists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-03-2014, 12:58 PM
RE: Incontrovertible proof God exists
(12-03-2014 12:57 PM)Miss Meng Wrote:  I would like to point out that I will probably only reply to shorter posts, as I have an attention disorder that prevents me from taking in large amounts of useless information (something atheists seem to have a prowess in).

~ Miss Meng

That must explain your wall of text in your original comment, don't worry, I fixed it for you Thumbsup

Atir aissom atir imon
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-03-2014, 01:37 PM (This post was last modified: 12-03-2014 01:43 PM by Reltzik.)
RE: Incontrovertible proof God exists
(12-03-2014 12:57 PM)Miss Meng Wrote:  I would like to point out that I will probably only reply to shorter posts, as I have an attention disorder that prevents me from taking in large amounts of useless information (something atheists seem to have a prowess in).

~ Miss Meng

How did you determine the information was useless if you were unable to read and process it? .... Fine. I'll summarize in order to accommodate your handicap.

Your OP argument from morality is flawed in the following manners:
  • It is a non-sequitur (the need for an objective morality doesn't automatically mean that one exists)
  • we're clearly getting by without an agreed-upon objective morality, ergo it's not absolutely needed
  • Your proposed God is not the only possible source for such a morality. Other examples include the 8-fold path of Buddhism, Confucian ethics or a common, genetically-determined instinct for empathy.
  • God's moral code would not automatically be objective. It would be just another subjective moral code. God existing would not fulfill the supposed need.
  • Even were all this not the case, we'd be left with the problem of different people disagreeing about what God's moral code is... which leaves us right back where we started. Again, supposed need unfilled.

Your later argument about the "information" source of genetics is flawed in that it focuses only on natural selection and ignores both point mutation and other forms of variation, which are what evolutionary theory identifies as the "information" source. The scientist you quoted was not arguing against evolution as a viable model, but against a specific model of evolution that focused entirely on point mutation and ignored other forms of variation. She favored a more robust model of evolution, but not a Creationist or Intelligent Design model.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Reltzik's post
12-03-2014, 01:39 PM
Incontrovertible proof God exists
(12-03-2014 12:57 PM)Miss Meng Wrote:  I would like to point out that I will probably only reply to shorter posts, as I have an attention disorder that prevents me from taking in large amounts of useless information (something atheists seem to have a prowess in).

~ Miss Meng

No wonder you have trouble understanding even the simplest replies.

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like rampant.a.i.'s post
12-03-2014, 01:49 PM
RE: Incontrovertible proof God exists
(12-03-2014 12:57 PM)Miss Meng Wrote:  I would like to point out that I will probably only reply to shorter posts, as I have an attention disorder that prevents me from taking in large amounts of useless information (something atheists seem to have a prowess in).

~ Miss Meng

Your disorder prevents you from taking in useful information.

And your underhanded insults prove that you are an ignorant, closed-minded, bigoted twat.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
12-03-2014, 01:57 PM
RE: Incontrovertible proof God exists
Bowing
(12-03-2014 01:49 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(12-03-2014 12:57 PM)Miss Meng Wrote:  I would like to point out that I will probably only reply to shorter posts, as I have an attention disorder that prevents me from taking in large amounts of useless information (something atheists seem to have a prowess in).

~ Miss Meng

Your disorder prevents you from taking in useful information.

And your underhanded insults prove that you are an ignorant, closed-minded, bigoted twat.


I always knew I loved you Heart

Swing with me a while, we can listen to the birds call, we can keep each other warm.
Swing with me forever, we can count up every flower, we can weather every storm.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Losty's post
12-03-2014, 02:00 PM
RE: Incontrovertible proof God exists
(11-03-2014 11:41 AM)Miss Meng Wrote:  From Uncommon Descent:

Moral Subjectivism - Nazis Were Doing Good and We Shouldn’t Have Stopped Them

Under moral subjectivism, good and bad are entirely subjective commodities. This means that if I think a thing is right, it is as right as is possible for moral right to exist. The principle of subjective morality authorizes an act as “morally good” if the person that performed the act believed it to be the right thing to do; that is the only framework available to moral subjectivism for an evaluation of “moral” and “immoral”. It is strictly a relationship between the actor/believer and the act.

Therefore, as long as Hitler believed his actions right, and those who carried out his orders believed similarly, then to the full extent that the principle of moral subjectivism has to authorize anything as “moral” or “good”, the holocaust was a good and moral event, and moral subjectivists must (rationally speaking) admit this. (I doubt they will, though.)

The way that moral relativists attempt to wiggle out of this is by saying that in their opinion, Hitler was behaving immorally. Unfortunately, they have no rational basis for making this statement. It is a category error, a non-sequitur under moral subjectivism, offered as if there was some means by which to pass judgement on what others consider to be right. Their principle necessarily endorses the actions of the Nazis as morally good as long as they (the Nazis) believed what they were doing was right; what anyone else thought or thinks is entirely irrelevant. The most that the principle of moral subjectivism logically allows subjectivists to say is that gassing the Jews would not be morally good for them personally to do, but that it was morally good for the Nazis to do.

Furthermore, since the principle of moral subjectivism offers no valid reason to intervene in the moral affairs of others (since it is entirely subjective and there is no objective obligation or authority to do so), and since moral relativists must admit that nothing morally wrong was occurring in the first place (in fact, only moral good was likely happening, since the Nazis believed what they were doing was right), they must hold that we should not have interfered with the Nazis.

Thus, moral subjectivism necessary means that the Nazis were doing good and we shouldn’t have stopped them.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intellige...ectivism-n azis-were-doing-good-and-we-shouldnt-have-stopped-them/

Thus, we NEED God for morality. Thus, morality, love, creativity, ethics all emanate from his divine authority.

I am so happy I was able to offer people who are a little confused about His existence some guidance, help and support.

Miss Meng takes a sip of her mineral water. Let the facts speak for themselves, shall we?

~ Miss Meng

Uncommon descent. Kinda speaks for itself, yeah?

We're on a beach, the water cold, unforgiving. Unto us the tide gives,

Two shillings.

And you claim design, as I ponder, and question the moon,

Who are you?

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
12-03-2014, 02:01 PM
RE: Incontrovertible proof God exists
(12-03-2014 01:57 PM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  Bowing
(12-03-2014 01:49 PM)Chas Wrote:  Your disorder prevents you from taking in useful information.

And your underhanded insults prove that you are an ignorant, closed-minded, bigoted twat.


I always knew I loved you Heart

I would love Chas... If he ever shaved.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
12-03-2014, 05:00 PM
RE: Incontrovertible proof God exists
(12-03-2014 01:49 PM)Chas Wrote:  Your disorder prevents you from taking in useful information.

And your underhanded insults prove that you are an ignorant, closed-minded, bigoted twat.

Oh Chas, are you still upset that you were caught with your pants down in the other thread. Don't worry Chas, Miss Meng will make it all better here because she uses reason, logic, sensible thinking and above all a mature attitude.

I am always available for a conversation Chas, anytime you wish. I don't mean to correct you, but you do make the mistake of umm, shall we say, misunderstanding things! Miss Meng titters. Never mind, I am confident this confusion is rectifiable very quickly Chas.

Take care Chas and God bless.

~ Miss Meng
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-03-2014, 06:18 PM (This post was last modified: 12-03-2014 08:23 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Incontrovertible proof God exists
(12-03-2014 02:43 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(11-03-2014 11:41 AM)Miss Meng Wrote:  From Uncommon Descent:

Moral Subjectivism - Nazis Were Doing Good and We Shouldn’t Have Stopped Them

Under moral subjectivism, good and bad are entirely subjective commodities. This means that if I think a thing is right, it is as right as is possible for moral right to exist. The principle of subjective morality authorizes an act as “morally good” if the person that performed the act believed it to be the right thing to do; that is the only framework available to moral subjectivism for an evaluation of “moral” and “immoral”. It is strictly a relationship between the actor/believer and the act.

Therefore, as long as Hitler believed his actions right, and those who carried out his orders believed similarly, then to the full extent that the principle of moral subjectivism has to authorize anything as “moral” or “good”, the holocaust was a good and moral event, and moral subjectivists must (rationally speaking) admit this. (I doubt they will, though.)

The way that moral relativists attempt to wiggle out of this is by saying that in their opinion, Hitler was behaving immorally. Unfortunately, they have no rational basis for making this statement. It is a category error, a non-sequitur under moral subjectivism, offered as if there was some means by which to pass judgement on what others consider to be right. Their principle necessarily endorses the actions of the Nazis as morally good as long as they (the Nazis) believed what they were doing was right; what anyone else thought or thinks is entirely irrelevant. The most that the principle of moral subjectivism logically allows subjectivists to say is that gassing the Jews would not be morally good for them personally to do, but that it was morally good for the Nazis to do.

Furthermore, since the principle of moral subjectivism offers no valid reason to intervene in the moral affairs of others (since it is entirely subjective and there is no objective obligation or authority to do so), and since moral relativists must admit that nothing morally wrong was occurring in the first place (in fact, only moral good was likely happening, since the Nazis believed what they were doing was right), they must hold that we should not have interfered with the Nazis.

Thus, moral subjectivism necessary means that the Nazis were doing good and we shouldn’t have stopped them.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intellige...ectivism-n azis-were-doing-good-and-we-shouldnt-have-stopped-them/

Thus, we NEED God for morality. Thus, morality, love, creativity, ethics all emanate from his divine authority.

I am so happy I was able to offer people who are a little confused about His existence some guidance, help and support.

Miss Meng takes a sip of her mineral water. Let the facts speak for themselves, shall we?

~ Miss Meng

Hi Miss Meng, I have a question for you.

我比较感兴趣的是想知道你家里是否有养鱼,有鱼缸在你的起居室?

Please reply in Chinese. Regards, Mark

Mmmmm.
I can't post in Chinese. Bugger. Would have loved to read the reply.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
12-03-2014, 08:17 PM (This post was last modified: 12-03-2014 08:21 PM by Miss Meng.)
RE: Incontrovertible proof God exists
(12-03-2014 01:49 PM)Chas Wrote:  Your disorder prevents you from taking in useful information.

Chas, do you know what moral relativism is? It means the person believes there is no objective truth in regards to morality. ANYTHING can be justified as right or wrong depending on the viewpoint of the individual. THAT'S why we need GOD moral morality. We NEED a moral authority, otherwise Hitler and the nazis' actions are perfectly justifiable to them and to those who think as they do, and those who disagree can only do that - disagree. But so what? It doesn't mean those that disagree are right or wrong and it doesn't mean the nazis were right or wrong...it means ALL are right and wrong. In moral relativism, Hilter's morals are just as 'good' as yours and you have no moral authority in which to appeal to show that you're right.

Chas, THAT'S the point. Your opinion would be irrelevant because it's no better or worse than theirs. Think of it as if it were a painting. You may find it beautiful, others may find it ugly. Do you care what the others think of the painting? Do their opinions determine whether YOU think it's beautiful?

You see, your opinion is irrelevant to them just as their opinion is to you.
Same with moral relativism. Your opinion of whether Hitler/nazis were wrong immoral is irrelevant because there is no one true morality in moral subjectivism. You're right in what you believe to be moral, and the nazis were right in what they believed to be moral. THAT is why we NEED GOD, Chas. Without GOD, the nazis' actions were not immoral even if we think of them as immoral because our opinion carries no more weight than theirs. We have a draw.

In fact, in atheism, the nazis were more than justified o do what they did because they are just dominating the others in nature, a la 'survival of the fittest' If the nazis could ensure their descendants would have a better chance of survival by killing off 6 million people, and basically running Europe, why is that immoral? That's what darwinism is all about: Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

THAT's also why darwinism is needed by eugenicists, which is why they struggle so hard to retain it in spite of the fact more and more scientists are moving away from it in light of the negative evidence against it.

You have to ask yourself this question: If moral relativism is true, then why have morality at all? It would akin to allowing people to obey only the laws they agree with. One would ask: Why have laws at all then?

Quote:And your underhanded insults prove that you are an ignorant, closed-minded, bigoted twat.

You have already said that Chas. We all know you have absolutely nothing of merit or substance to add and get flustered at the thought of others intellectual prowess and so resort to insults or namecalling.

I am though very sorry you feel that way Chas.

Take care Chas and may He bless you! Smile

~ Miss Meng
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: