What is sin?

[Witch]

God exists whether anyone shows that he does or not.

I'm sorry but stamping your feet and holding your breath isn't going to make your spurious claim anything more than a spurious claim.

Until you can show God exists, you have no reasonable basis for the claim God exists.

 

[Jaebius]

For morality to be objective it has to have a source outside the human condition. If humans only are the source for morality then it cannot be objective.

Thus if God doesn't exist then objective morality cannot exist.

If you cannot show God exists, then you have no reasonable basis for claiming an objective morality exists.

The thing is - God's existence is not dependent on whether or not we can prove it.

 

[Jaebius]

I'm sorry but stamping your feet and holding your breath isn't going to make your spurious claim anything more than a spurious claim.

Until you can show God exists, you have no reasonable basis for the claim God exists.

God has told us that he exists in his love letter to humanity - The Holy Bible. God also reveals himself through what he has created.

 

[Witch]

Its not as simple as you make it to be


One does not have to show the objective to come to the conclusion that objectivity exists , that’s like telling an archeologist who finds pottery artifacts and wont conclude that they were created because he can’t show the creators of them .


Furthermore if only subjectivity exists, right and wrong morality in the hands of subjective evolution is nonexistent , for example you cannot prove what Hitler did was wrong based on its subjective evolved morality.

Fallacy of equivocation.

Sorry but comparing pottery to morality is like apples to goldfish.

You cannot have objective morals unless those morals have a source outside humanity.

The other side of the coin is you can't use the existence of objective morals to prove God, because you cannot show any moral imperative that is purely objective.

 

[Witch]

The thing is - God's existence is not dependent on whether or not we can prove it.

Neither is his non-existence, which is the other side of the coin that you consistently fail to acknowledge

The Invisible Pink Unicorn's existence, or non-existence, is not dependent on us either, but there's simply no reason to believe the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists, unless you can show it exists.

 

[Witch]

God has told us that he exists in his love letter to humanity - The Holy Bible. God also reveals himself through what he has created.

Yes we all understand that you have chosen to believe that.... however it really doesn't help the discussion at all, since what you choose to believe in the absence of any objective evidence hardly helps you show the existence of God.

 

[GordW]

I submit that there is no objective evidence to prove the existence of God. In fact I submit it is impossible to prove the existence of God at all.

All one can do is explain why one believes in God.

 

[Witch]

[FONT=Open Sans, sans-serif]Furthermore if only subjectivity exists, right and wrong morality in the hands of subjective evolution is nonexistent , for example you cannot prove what Hitler did was wrong based on its subjective evolved morality.[/FONT]

Arguement from incredulity.

You cannot prove the existence of God because the consequences of a society built on subjective morality are too frightening for you to bear.

If Morality is subjective, and every indication in the absence of any objective evidence of God is that it is, society seems to manage to deal with those consequences just fine.

If Morality is subjective then it is part of a social contract. Hitler broke the social contract. If right and wrong are based on a subjective morality, which all evidence points to, then it is by the terms of that social contract that we judge Hiltlers actions to be wrong.

Like it or not, until you can show God exists, that's what you have to work with. Sorry you don't like it.

 

[Witch]

I submit that there is no objective evidence to prove the existence of God. In fact I submit it is impossible to prove the existence of God at all.

All one can do is explain why one believes in God.

Certainly.

However, we're not talking about whether or not one should believe in God. We're exploring the spurious claims of those who insist that objective morality exists.

 

[GordW]

I would also submit that there is no such thing as objective morality. Moral claims are by their very nature societal and contextual and therefore never truly objective.

 

[blackbelt1961]

Arguement from incredulity.

You cannot prove the existence of God because the consequences of a society built on subjective morality are too frightening for you to bear.

it has nothing to do with me being frighten, thats an assumption on your part, why I do conclude that God exists is because I look at Creation which is Gods effect, so I can reasonably conclude that Objectivity exists. same as your mind or any other independent mind, we cannot see other minds yet we can see there effects there thinking can cause, so it quite reasonable to conclude that independent minds do exist

If Morality is subjective, and every indication in the absence of any objective evidence of God is that it is, society seems to manage to deal with those consequences just fine.

i would argue your "every indication" that you think there is , I would also argue your "Society seems to manage just fine "

If Morality is subjective then it is part of a social contract. Hitler broke the social contract. If right and wrong are based on a subjective morality, which all evidence points to, then it is by the terms of that social contract that we judge Hiltlers actions to be wrong.

Hitler according to His social contract did nothing wrong , which social contract is to be accepted as JUST when no higher judge other than self exists?????????????????????????

furthermore if evolution is true which I dont believe for a second , and we evolved based on survival instincts and not truth or morally ability then man cannot even trust in his moral code. Even Darwin the father of evolution understood it that and admitted it

Like it or not, until you can show God exists, that's what you have to work with. Sorry you don't like it.

its not a matter of like , its a matter of truth, so philosophically speaking, your arguments hold no merit, or are you one of those like Hawking who claims philosophy is dead

 

[Azdgari]

For morality to be objective it has to have a source outside the human condition. If humans only are the source for morality then it cannot be objective.

I still fail to see the relevance. Other conscious sources of morality, outside of humanity, would also be subjective. Moral values would be true relative to the points of view of those other sources, and thus be subjective as well.

Thus if God doesn't exist then objective morality cannot exist.

If you cannot show God exists, then you have no reasonable basis for claiming an objective morality exists.

Again, I just don't see the relevance. "God = objective morality" is a common trope, but I've yet to see an argument for it that holds water.

 

[RichardBott]

Sin is anything that works to build a barrier between us and God. (Not sayin' it actually does it... it just tries really hard.)

 

[revjohn]

Sin is anything that works to build a barrier between us and God. (Not sayin' it actually does it... it just tries really hard.)

Would you be willing to extend your definition of sin to include anything that works to build a barrier between us and our neighbour?

 

[Northwind]

If Morality is subjective then it is part of a social contract. Hitler broke the social contract. If right and wrong are based on a subjective morality, which all evidence points to, then it is by the terms of that social contract that we judge Hiltlers actions to be wrong.

Hitler according to His social contract did nothing wrong , which social contract is to be accepted as JUST when no higher judge other than self exists?????????????????????????

Blackbelt you need to read Witch's post again. Hitler broke THE social contract. A contract is between between one person and at least one other. A social contract is often more than that. Of course Hitler felt what he was doing was right. Did the rest of the world?

 

[blackbelt1961]

Would you be willing to extend your definition of sin to include anything that works to build a barrier between us and our neighbour?

RevJohn,

I Have never thought of that wow , you are so right

 

[blackbelt1961]

Blackbelt you need to read Gord's post again. Hitler broke THE social contract. A contract is between between one person and at least one other. A social contract is often more than that. Of course Hitler felt what he was doing was right. Did the rest of the world?

I did read it, If Hitler society itself found it morally acceptably for only the Aron nation to exists for the betterment of humanity and another society did not , whos ever moral code won the battle would make no difference because the moral code to both societies is simply a self evolved moral acceptance with no room for ultimate justice and truth life itself becomes meaningless Man and the universe are without ultimate significance.

who is to Judge the actions of Hitler or a saint ? a race that is guaranteed an ultimate death?, the concept of morality loses all meaning in a universe with out God.

To say that something is wrong because it is forbidding by God is perfictally understandable by anyone who believes in a law giving God ,

BUT:

to say something is wrong even though no God exists to forbid it is not understandable , the concept of obligation of morality is unintelligent . In other words, with out God (objectivisim) , the word morality remains for a time, but is void of meaning, and there for wars, murder, rape , even Love , compassion, goodness, ultimately cannot be judged in a world doomed to certain oblivion

 

[RichardBott]

Would you be willing to extend your definition of sin to include anything that works to build a barrier between us and our neighbour?

Yes, surely.

Hmmm... sin is the antithesis of The Great Commandment?

 

[Seeler]

Yes, surely.

Hmmm... sin is the antithesis of The Great Commandment?

Sometimes when I don't know just how to express my beliefs, I find if I wait someone does it beautifully. This is one of those times. Thanks Richard. (sorry I wasn't there in person to meet you at the Wondergathering. I was on the virtual bus.)

 

[Jaebius]

Sometimes when I don't know just how to express my beliefs, I find if I wait someone does it beautifully. This is one of those times. Thanks Richard. (sorry I wasn't there in person to meet you at the Wondergathering. I was on the virtual bus.)

Yeah - I really liked that thought too.