Totally schooled him Cliffe. Well done, that last bit was perfect, he literally ran into his own fallacy: "Well, I help handicap people because it is the right thing to do ." -- Thanks Cliffe.
17:30 the kid is totally NOT LISTENING, you can see him just waiting for his turn to talk which is why he truly doesn't understand what cliffe is saying.
Whew! They were really talking past each other for a while, but as soon as the dude made the evolutionary argument for morals, Cliffe was ALL OVER him! Ya love to see it.
You can choose to listen to your conscience or not. Even a child knows it's wrong to take the cookie when mom said 'no'. But it can choose to ignore it. That's why it is sometimes necessary to remind someone of what their conscience is already telling them.
It’s because they took one year of philosophy and English and now they know these terms so I use them as much as possible. It’s the same kids who come home from college after one semester and keep using the words subjective and objective because they took English 101.
The statement that "morality is subjective" is _itself_ a statement of objective morality. (The statement is incorrect, but it is nonetheless _posited as_ an objective moral truth). Therefore the statement is self-refuting. Therefore its logical converse must necessarily be true: _The conclusion is that morality is necessarily objective._
Yep well said!! A strictly reductive, materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism reduces every element of absoluteness to relativity while making a completely illogical exception in favor of this reduction itself. It’s a question begging fallacy and a special pleading fallacy of the highest degree. The fact is that it consists in asserting the claim that there is no “truth” as if this were “truth” itself? Oblivious to the irony of declaring it to be “absolutely” true that there is nothing but the relatively true!! It’s synonymous with saying that there is no language or writing that there is no writing. In fact, every idea is reduced to relativity, whether psychological, historical, or social; but the assertion undermines itself by the fact that it too presents itself as a psychological, historical, or social relativity. The assertion clearly contradicts itself if it is “true” and by contradicting itself logically proves thereby that it is totally false and is an atheistic nihilistic fantasy. Its first absurdity lies in the fact that it is a logical fallacy, a (Special Pleading Fallacy). An implicit claim to be unique in escaping, as if by magic, from a relativity that is declared to be the only “absolute” possibility. It’s like believing that if you just screamed loud enough “there is no such thing as sound”!! then sound will cease to exist!! “When our pride usurps Truth, we walk on the shifting sands of relativism, an ego driven reality.”
I always get really disturbed and sad when people tell me that someone is valuable because they are smart. That leads to someone really dangerous thinking.
The first sentence was simply pointing out that the rest of the sentence was subjunctive. Ryuzuki, do you know what subjunctives and hypotheticals are?
Love, kindess, goodness, and integrity can all be explained through science. I don't choose to think about them in that way because it can take away from the experience of being human, but that does not mean that they are inexplicable.
You know why the Miller experiment worked without oxygen? There was next to none in the atmosphere when life first began. Where do you think the banded iron formation came from?
I think you were trying to say: If my opinion is the only thing I base my morals upon, then it holds no weight because other people may have a different opinion and the only reason mine is better to me is solely the fact that it's mine. I would object to that because my morals are not solely base upon my opinion; my morals are based upon a what society, and myself, rationalize to the the most beneficial for the most amount of people. I can rationalize when stealing is OK and when it isn't.
It's not about choosing the "correct" religion. It's about entering an eternal love relationship with your creator. He didn't just toss down a book and say"good luck on your gamble". He took upon flesh and changed the course of time by laying his life down, and becoming a substitute for you and me so we can enter that relationship with the confidence that the evil in you and me has been payed for. Only He knows who is truely trusting in Him, and not themselves. The cross = God's love for you
Uh, Central? Nobody thinks that these chemicals formed at "ordinary temperatures." They hypothesize that they occurred at extreme temperatures. You know, where chemistry most easily happens...? And by the way, would you care to give us the numeric variables they used to come up with this?
Ryu, you seem to be implying falsely that I 1) took things out of context (as if the context wasn't blatantly clear to begin with) and that 2) there is some context that justifies slavery, torture, and extermination of human beings.
The kid talking about Ghandi and all that was annoying.... He completely misses the point. If his sister is raped, and the rapist finds it right, and he and the society finds it wrong, they cannot do anything about it if the world had no objective morals, because it is all relative. It would be wrong to come after the rapist for violating the beliefs of others when he has different beliefs. Obviously, morals aren't relative are they? Exactly. The kid lacks logic.
So wait, now you're saying I can't use real life standards to judge fictional events? I can't say "darth vader was evil for blowing up a planet with people on it with the Death Star?"
You're assuming these things spontaneously came into being, which isn't the case. They emerged gradually over time. If you had actually spent "a LOT" of time on this, you would have learned it in Biology 101.
I see. So I am going "nyah nyah" when I revealed that you took passages out of context. But somehow when all you do is accuse me of going "nyah nyah", you are valid?
So when Leviticus 25:44-46 says: “Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.” It wasn't condoning slavery?
Every basis for morals people have is personal of course. But is that personal standard based on just your/anyone's opinion: basis inside yourself or on something not bound to personal opinion: basis outside of yourself, like the Ten Commandments for example. When it's the first, how can you say to someone with a different opinion, e.g. to steal is ok, that that's wrong, when they use the same standard you do: personal opinion. A variable, personal standard is no standard imo.
Just like in court many evidences are presented, there are many many things that point to an intelligent designer. Have you ever really stopped to think about just how weird it is that you exist ? Really, why is there something rather than nothing ? Think about it, then do you really believe that a rock turned into living matter ? You know the odds of that happening are something like 1 in 10 to the 6,000 + power. I looked it up.
because you would have to leave your mind in order to confirm that your mind is reliable at predicting reality. You see reality exist outside of our own minds, we are trapped in our minds, it cant be said then that our minds are interpreting whats outside of our minds correctly.
A) They didn't live in the United States. I will explain more about stoning too. However, in the times and situation, a when a person became a "slave" of another, they were provided work, a job, shelter, etc. Many people willingly became slaves because of this. Moreover, the "slavery" for debt is working for 6 years. After that, they are given gifts to succeed in life. TBC
Very kind of you, but I have an IQ of close to 140, have an engineering degree and been working as an engineer/manager for nearly 20 years. I am well capable of thinking on my own. GBU. :-)
First off, why does it have to be a god and not just a natural axiom? And if it has to be divine, why does it have to be just one god instead of a pantheon (even though the Christian god actually is a pantheon of three)? And if it has to be just one god, why does it have to be this one specific god? And as I said before, there is no evidence present for the empty tomb argument, and in all likelihood the tomb was just a literary invention.
Not, because you are not looking at the actual facts and evidence to make your judgement of what is true, you are just choosing which is the most beneficial to yourself. If you applied that in science you would stray from the path of truth in order to gain the most for yourself.
Anyone can believe a lie. One's moral view is only relative to them as opposed to the truth. I believe murder is wrong, but I can snap on someone and kill them, does that mean all morals are relative? NO! I would be WRONG to murder the person. Why? Because it is objectively wrong to kill another human. Anyone and anything can be wrong as opposed to the truth. I'll just leave with this... If no God created all of our morals, then who sat down thousands and thousands of years ago and made up all of these rules, and why? If all morals were relative, it would be a dog eat dog world and there would be no thing such as justice.
Yup, heard all the same childish assumptions before, Central. Refuted several times over in "Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations" by Ian Musgrave.
Indian boy says "Lack of evidence of something is not evidence to the contrary." That is correct. Yet he fails to provide evidence to the contrary of Theism. He has no evidence in support of his belief in atheist Dogma, _and neither does anyone else._ More importantly, God has provided an abundance of evidence in support of Theism. _The conclusion is that Theism is true, and atheist Dogma is false._
some of these brilliant minds on campus one day will stand before Jesus and eat all the words and thoughts they have. Many will argue with a sign post.
thats a great question, i do not know i do not know reality really exist outside of myself, but to say something that corresponds to reality would force me to believe in God. So another words, i could be wrong about reality but to say i know anything about reality at all, i would have to assume God exist. So i take the stance we can know about reality, but for that to be true, God would have to exist. If God exist our logic is trustworthy and truth can be known. The only way.
Helping handicapped people is showing that we as a society/species accept changes and differences in others. Sure most handicap's seem like degenerative mutations, however inside that degenerative mutation occasionally are hidden talents (look at rain man). Those mutations are what drive evolution, and if we saw things that were different as bad then we would halt evolution.
“Most handicaps seem like degenerative mutations” “Those mutations are what drive evolution” So your saying that “handicaps” (Disabled Children) are “mutations” that have “value” because an evolved monkey who shares half their DNA with bananas claims it’s valuable to “drive evolution”? Are you for real? Why is it “valuable” to “drive evolution”? According to who’s authority? The authority of a cosmic accident or the authority of the accidental arrangement of a bag of random, blind, mindless, meaningless chemicals? The fact is that a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism is a causally closed effectively complete system unless you appeal to something outside the system. The irony is that “value” claims, truth claims, the prescriptive laws of logic are metaphysical presuppositions outside this causally closed effectively complete system that can not be proven, justified or grounded in a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism that clearly excludes metaphysical realities. Sorry but evolution just (is). Evolution just (is) a description of what (is) not what (ought) to be. This is comedy gold and is hilarious because as if a mindless process of evolution could possibly be an authority on morals, ethics and values. Sorry but this is a logical fallacy!! The fact is that… “You can not get an (ought) out of an (is)” - (David Hume) The fact is that disabled children are not soulless determined machines and “mutations” who have “value” because an evolved monkey who shares half their DNA with bananas says it’s “valuable” to “drive evolution”!! Sorry but this is nothing more than the (Is/ought Fallacy and the Naturalistic Fallacy). Everyone has a right to believe what they want and everyone including theists have a right to find it totally ridiculous!! This world view clearly leads to epistemological nihilism and is a culture of death and meaninglessness and inevitably moral bankruptcy. The fact is that reality and existence and in particular the qualities of experience aren’t made of “matter” they are made of (what matters). The fact is that no mother goes around telling their disabled child I love you because you “mutations” have value because you “drive evolution”. It’s total and utter b…sht and is a nihilistic, narcissistic fantasy!! It beggars belief that people actually fall for this (scientism) of the gaps nihilistic nonsense!! Real science is not synonymous with any quasi religion related to atheism, nihilism or fatalism. Equally, the fact is that the only reason this self refuting world view retains a any degree of respectability is because it borrows the concept of absolute truth from theism and then plagiarises the concept of moral absolutes, universals, paradigmatic truth, prescriptive laws of logic and objective morality from monotheism in the first place. The irony is that under a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism “you” and your claims to the rational and moral high ground are nothing more substantive than a cosmic accident and nothing more than the delusions of an overgrown amoeba with illusions of grandeur. Why “ought” we take the truth claims of an overgrown amoeba with illusions of grandeur seriously? Why should we believe the myths, delusions and “truth” claims of an evolved ape who shares half their DNA with bananas?? Your existential crisis and epistemological crisis not ours buddy!! Why should we take the truth claims of a chemical and biological robot seriously? The fact is that a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism is a causally closed effectively complete system that is completely meaningless unless you appeal to something outside the system. Sorry but under this self refuting causally closed effectively complete world view you are just brain chemicals, you are just the brains user illusion of “self” and nothing more substantive than the science project of vinegar and baking soda bubbling over!! Does the science project of vinegar and baking soda bubble over with “moral virtue” when it claims that (Disabled children) are “mutations” that have “value” because they “drive evolution”? Can the science project of vinegar and baking soda take the credit for its circular logic, self contradiction and moral bankruptcy? The fact is that under a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism your truth claims have no more “truth” value than leaves blowing in the wind and “you”and the leaves including your belief that disabled children are “mutations” that have “value” because they “drive evolution” are destined for the same place (The Fertiliser Pit). As I pointed out already your existential crisis and epistemological crisis not ours buddy!!
“Most handicaps seem like degenerative mutations” “Those mutations are what drive evolution” Furthermore, there’s a reason why Davros the villain in (Dr Who) who created the Daleks using eugenics to remove all compassion, mercy and empathy was based on Bertrand Russell. Russell was a proponent of eugenics and the sterilisation of the “defective”. “Measures of sterilization should, in my opinion, be very definitely confined to persons who are mentally defective” (Bertrand Russell). Reference: Bertrand Russell (1971). “Bertrand Russell's best: silhouettes in satire”, Allen & Unwin “Eugenics itself, in large quantities or small, coming quickly or coming slowly, urged from good motives or bad, applied to a thousand people or applied to three, Eugenics itself is a thing no more to be bargained about than poisoning.” (G.K. Chesterton 1874 - 1936). “There is one thing, and only one, in the whole universe which we know more about than we could learn from external observation. That one thing is Man. We do not merely observe men, we are men. In this case we have, so to speak, inside information; we are in the know.“ - (Clive Staples Lewis), Reference: Mere Christianity Book I, Chapter 4, "What Lies behind the Law" Mere Christianity (1952).
Does the death penalty prevent murder? Even when people know the risks, they take them. Like you. God does not force you to look for Him. But you can. Can you say you know enough about Him to make an informed decision?
Well, half of those things aren't even immoral. And the others, which are crimes, can be remedied by other punishments than "mass extermination of men, women, children, and infants."
But the point is....... Where do those laws come from. They just didn't pop out on the paper. How do you think the slaves, In American, were freed? It's not like a clock timer went off & then said.... Ok you can go now...
There is no possible way life could have arisen by chance, i have spent a LOT of time on this subject. You see the 1st cell would have to be self replicating in order to survive and evolve. Since if it was not, it would simply die, like all cells do. Protein does not form by chance, you need dna. But dna needs protein. So 1st cell needed dna and protein all at same time at same place. Not to mention a cell wall ATP for energy, 100% impossible. I could see a car coming together easier by chance
Sorry Ryu, but you need to read up on ancient history if you think that slaves of the Hebrews were treated any differently than the slaves in every other ancient Near Eastern kingdom. And more importantly, how it was no different than the slavery of 300 years ago.
Cliff should write another book and call it, “Who Gives A Rip?”
I laughed out loud
Absolutely lol, that'll be a best seller😂🙏🏾
I laughed out loud as well. That was good
@@Randyw1111 I laughed too Cliffe is funny 😂
For sure 😂
Totally schooled him Cliffe. Well done, that last bit was perfect, he literally ran into his own fallacy: "Well, I help handicap people because it is the right thing to do ." -- Thanks Cliffe.
Mic DROP!
Pwa pwa pwaaa 🎤
Wow he said so much but litteraly nothing at the same time. Thank you Cliff for being incredibly patient.
“In MY opinion.” “In MY opinion.” Fallacy this, fallacy that.
17:30 the kid is totally NOT LISTENING, you can see him just waiting for his turn to talk which is why he truly doesn't understand what cliffe is saying.
Whew! They were really talking past each other for a while, but as soon as the dude made the evolutionary argument for morals, Cliffe was ALL OVER him! Ya love to see it.
You can choose to listen to your conscience or not. Even a child knows it's wrong to take the cookie when mom said 'no'. But it can choose to ignore it. That's why it is sometimes necessary to remind someone of what their conscience is already telling them.
The Indian-American boy spent a lot of time describing his opinion.
The problem is that his opinion was objectively wrong.
The Truth will set you free Amazing ❤️🙏
2:46
Please, people - stop using “fallacy” as a throw-away term that means ‘I don’t like’.
So true
It’s because they took one year of philosophy and English and now they know these terms so I use them as much as possible. It’s the same kids who come home from college after one semester and keep using the words subjective and objective because they took English 101.
Awesome talk Cliffe, my favorite so far!
Without God, there could be no moral dilemmas, and yet there are.
The statement that "morality is subjective" is _itself_ a statement of objective morality.
(The statement is incorrect, but it is nonetheless _posited as_ an objective moral truth).
Therefore the statement is self-refuting.
Therefore its logical converse must necessarily be true:
_The conclusion is that morality is necessarily objective._
Yep well said!! A strictly reductive, materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism reduces every element of absoluteness to relativity while making a completely illogical exception in favor of this reduction itself. It’s a question begging fallacy and a special pleading fallacy of the highest degree. The fact is that it consists in asserting the claim that there is no “truth” as if this were “truth” itself? Oblivious to the irony of declaring it to be “absolutely” true that there is nothing but the relatively true!! It’s synonymous with saying that there is no language or writing that there is no writing. In fact, every idea is reduced to relativity, whether psychological, historical, or social; but the assertion undermines itself by the fact that it too presents itself as a psychological, historical, or social relativity. The assertion clearly contradicts itself if it is “true” and by contradicting itself logically proves thereby that it is totally false and is an atheistic nihilistic fantasy. Its first absurdity lies in the fact that it is a logical fallacy, a (Special Pleading Fallacy). An implicit claim to be unique in escaping, as if by magic, from a relativity that is declared to be the only “absolute” possibility.
It’s like believing that if you just screamed loud enough “there is no such thing as sound”!! then sound will cease to exist!!
“When our pride usurps Truth, we walk on the shifting sands of relativism, an ego driven reality.”
I always get really disturbed and sad when people tell me that someone is valuable because they are smart. That leads to someone really dangerous thinking.
Without God, there could be no objective moral ideals, and yet there are.
You believe in a higher power? I hope you find who that is, that power has a name, His name is Jesus Christ.
This guy just got out of his Sociology 101 class, where he was challenged to use the term "mores" over 100 times 🙄
Without God, nobody could agree or disagree about anything, and yet we can.
It's insane people claim to be logical and they don't follow logic.
People that try to argue sound sooo ignorant
Without God, nobody could prove anything, and yet we can.
Without God, there could be no objective means for distinguishing
between moral and immoral acts, and yet there are.
Without God, racism could not be objectively wrong, and yet it is.
The first sentence was simply pointing out that the rest of the sentence was subjunctive.
Ryuzuki, do you know what subjunctives and hypotheticals are?
All human beings know for certain that God's unique qualities
and activities are factual, and this includes you.
There is only one God, and he does not belong to Cliffe: Actually, all of us belong to God.
Yes we all belong to GOD.
When will there be a new video?
Great uploads I want his books
Was a really good dialogue.
One more "I am rubber and you are glue, nyah nyah" comment from you and this discussion is over, Ryuzaki.
Which tv program is this shown on?
The more often you explain away God the harder your heart becomes
Without God, nobody could have a conscience, and yet we do.
you should never argue, that ruins the conversation. but this was a good convo
Cliffe revealed the truth again
Love, kindess, goodness, and integrity can all be explained through science. I don't choose to think about them in that way because it can take away from the experience of being human, but that does not mean that they are inexplicable.
That was your second "I know you are but what am I" line. Strike two.
You know why the Miller experiment worked without oxygen? There was next to none in the atmosphere when life first began. Where do you think the banded iron formation came from?
I think you were trying to say: If my opinion is the only thing I base my morals upon, then it holds no weight because other people may have a different opinion and the only reason mine is better to me is solely the fact that it's mine. I would object to that because my morals are not solely base upon my opinion; my morals are based upon a what society, and myself, rationalize to the the most beneficial for the most amount of people. I can rationalize when stealing is OK and when it isn't.
Why not? Last time I checked what you state above is one of the basic principles used in Artificial Intelligence.
You're the best man.
It's not about choosing the "correct" religion. It's about entering an eternal love relationship with your creator. He didn't just toss down a book and say"good luck on your gamble". He took upon flesh and changed the course of time by laying his life down, and becoming a substitute for you and me so we can enter that relationship with the confidence that the evil in you and me has been payed for. Only He knows who is truely trusting in Him, and not themselves. The cross = God's love for you
that cactus is cool
Keep them coming.
Uh, Central? Nobody thinks that these chemicals formed at "ordinary temperatures." They hypothesize that they occurred at extreme temperatures. You know, where chemistry most easily happens...?
And by the way, would you care to give us the numeric variables they used to come up with this?
Ryu, you seem to be implying falsely that I 1) took things out of context (as if the context wasn't blatantly clear to begin with) and that 2) there is some context that justifies slavery, torture, and extermination of human beings.
I go internally as a hypothetical. Ryuzuki, are aware of the ability to think in the subjunctive form?
So wait, you're saying that 2 + 2 can possibly equal 10?
The kid talking about Ghandi and all that was annoying.... He completely misses the point. If his sister is raped, and the rapist finds it right, and he and the society finds it wrong, they cannot do anything about it if the world had no objective morals, because it is all relative. It would be wrong to come after the rapist for violating the beliefs of others when he has different beliefs. Obviously, morals aren't relative are they? Exactly. The kid lacks logic.
This dude just tries to use big words and sound smart, then whenever Cliffe proves him wrong on something He keeps saying I got to go to work lol.
And guess what? None have yet been found.
It I hear the word "mores" again, it will be too soon 😂. I enjoyed their discussion, but please cycle in some synonyms.
This entire discussion.
Without God, the Indian caste system could not be objectively wrong, and yet it is.
It would depend on the strength of the evidence. But if you have some, by all means, please present your strongest evidence.
So wait, now you're saying I can't use real life standards to judge fictional events? I can't say "darth vader was evil for blowing up a planet with people on it with the Death Star?"
You're assuming these things spontaneously came into being, which isn't the case. They emerged gradually over time. If you had actually spent "a LOT" of time on this, you would have learned it in Biology 101.
Without God, no moral ideal could be objectively correct, and yet they are.
I see. So I am going "nyah nyah" when I revealed that you took passages out of context. But somehow when all you do is accuse me of going "nyah nyah", you are valid?
So when Leviticus 25:44-46 says:
“Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.”
It wasn't condoning slavery?
So you're saying that A would not equal A without any gods? That's just stupid, dude. That's like saying "2 + 2 wouldn't equal 4 without my god(s)."
Pot called the teapot black.
It was your words.
You aren't punished for eating of the tree.
You are punished for your own misdeeds. Also, read Ezekiel 18.
Every basis for morals people have is personal of course. But is that personal standard based on just your/anyone's opinion: basis inside yourself or on something not bound to personal opinion: basis outside of yourself, like the Ten Commandments for example. When it's the first, how can you say to someone with a different opinion, e.g. to steal is ok, that that's wrong, when they use the same standard you do: personal opinion. A variable, personal standard is no standard imo.
You said that god is trying to woo us to him and not force us, why then does he use the punishment of hell and the reward of heaven as incentives?
Just like in court many evidences are presented, there are many many things that point to an intelligent designer. Have you ever really stopped to think about just how weird it is that you exist ? Really, why is there something rather than nothing ? Think about it, then do you really believe that a rock turned into living matter ? You know the odds of that happening are something like 1 in 10 to the 6,000 + power. I looked it up.
Stevie Rae: What did Cliff ignore?
I'm cherry picking?
You have been revealed to show that you took the verses out of context. You don't even know the purpose of the 613 Laws.
because you would have to leave your mind in order to confirm that your mind is reliable at predicting reality. You see reality exist outside of our own minds, we are trapped in our minds, it cant be said then that our minds are interpreting whats outside of our minds correctly.
A) They didn't live in the United States. I will explain more about stoning too. However, in the times and situation, a when a person became a "slave" of another, they were provided work, a job, shelter, etc. Many people willingly became slaves because of this. Moreover, the "slavery" for debt is working for 6 years. After that, they are given gifts to succeed in life.
TBC
Very kind of you, but I have an IQ of close to 140, have an engineering degree and been working as an engineer/manager for nearly 20 years. I am well capable of thinking on my own. GBU. :-)
First off, why does it have to be a god and not just a natural axiom? And if it has to be divine, why does it have to be just one god instead of a pantheon (even though the Christian god actually is a pantheon of three)? And if it has to be just one god, why does it have to be this one specific god?
And as I said before, there is no evidence present for the empty tomb argument, and in all likelihood the tomb was just a literary invention.
Not, because you are not looking at the actual facts and evidence to make your judgement of what is true, you are just choosing which is the most beneficial to yourself. If you applied that in science you would stray from the path of truth in order to gain the most for yourself.
Anyone can believe a lie. One's moral view is only relative to them as opposed to the truth. I believe murder is wrong, but I can snap on someone and kill them, does that mean all morals are relative? NO! I would be WRONG to murder the person. Why? Because it is objectively wrong to kill another human. Anyone and anything can be wrong as opposed to the truth. I'll just leave with this... If no God created all of our morals, then who sat down thousands and thousands of years ago and made up all of these rules, and why? If all morals were relative, it would be a dog eat dog world and there would be no thing such as justice.
Yup, heard all the same childish assumptions before, Central. Refuted several times over in "Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations" by Ian Musgrave.
All-moral, and respects the free will of humans.
However, He is still involved. Again, I will explain more on stoning.
Indian boy says "Lack of evidence of something is not evidence to the contrary."
That is correct.
Yet he fails to provide evidence to the contrary of Theism.
He has no evidence in support of his belief in atheist Dogma, _and neither does anyone else._
More importantly, God has provided an abundance of evidence in support of Theism.
_The conclusion is that Theism is true, and atheist Dogma is false._
some of these brilliant minds on campus one day will stand before Jesus and eat all the words and thoughts they have. Many will argue with a sign post.
Proverbs 21:8
The way of man is froward and strange: but as for the pure, his work is right.
thats a great question, i do not know i do not know reality really exist outside of myself, but to say something that corresponds to reality would force me to believe in God. So another words, i could be wrong about reality but to say i know anything about reality at all, i would have to assume God exist. So i take the stance we can know about reality, but for that to be true, God would have to exist. If God exist our logic is trustworthy and truth can be known. The only way.
You are basing your decision of truth upon the rewards if you are correct. That does not make your beliefs any more likely to be true.
2:46 This dude says it's a fallacy to give an example that proves your point.
Helping handicapped people is showing that we as a society/species accept changes and differences in others. Sure most handicap's seem like degenerative mutations, however inside that degenerative mutation occasionally are hidden talents (look at rain man). Those mutations are what drive evolution, and if we saw things that were different as bad then we would halt evolution.
“Most handicaps seem like degenerative mutations”
“Those mutations are what drive evolution”
So your saying that “handicaps” (Disabled Children) are “mutations” that have “value” because an evolved monkey who shares half their DNA with bananas claims it’s valuable to “drive evolution”? Are you for real? Why is it “valuable” to “drive evolution”? According to who’s authority? The authority of a cosmic accident or the authority of the accidental arrangement of a bag of random, blind, mindless, meaningless chemicals?
The fact is that a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism is a causally closed effectively complete system unless you appeal to something outside the system. The irony is that “value” claims, truth claims, the prescriptive laws of logic are metaphysical presuppositions outside this causally closed effectively complete system that can not be proven, justified or grounded in a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism that clearly excludes metaphysical realities. Sorry but evolution just (is). Evolution just (is) a description of what (is) not what (ought) to be. This is comedy gold and is hilarious because as if a mindless process of evolution could possibly be an authority on morals, ethics and values. Sorry but this is a logical fallacy!! The fact is that…
“You can not get an (ought) out of an (is)” - (David Hume)
The fact is that disabled children are not soulless determined machines and “mutations” who have “value” because an evolved monkey who shares half their DNA with bananas says it’s “valuable” to “drive evolution”!! Sorry but this is nothing more than the (Is/ought Fallacy and the Naturalistic Fallacy).
Everyone has a right to believe what they want and everyone including theists have a right to find it totally ridiculous!! This world view clearly leads to epistemological nihilism and is a culture of death and meaninglessness and inevitably moral bankruptcy. The fact is that reality and existence and in particular the qualities of experience aren’t made of “matter” they are made of (what matters).
The fact is that no mother goes around telling their disabled child I love you because you “mutations” have value because you “drive evolution”. It’s total and utter b…sht and is a nihilistic, narcissistic fantasy!! It beggars belief that people actually fall for this (scientism) of the gaps nihilistic nonsense!! Real science is not synonymous with any quasi religion related to atheism, nihilism or fatalism. Equally, the fact is that the only reason this self refuting world view retains a any degree of respectability is because it borrows the concept of absolute truth from theism and then plagiarises the concept of moral absolutes, universals, paradigmatic truth, prescriptive laws of logic and objective morality from monotheism in the first place.
The irony is that under a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism “you” and your claims to the rational and moral high ground are nothing more substantive than a cosmic accident and nothing more than the delusions of an overgrown amoeba with illusions of grandeur. Why “ought” we take the truth claims of an overgrown amoeba with illusions of grandeur seriously?
Why should we believe the myths, delusions and “truth” claims of an evolved ape who shares half their DNA with bananas?? Your existential crisis and epistemological crisis not ours buddy!!
Why should we take the truth claims of a chemical and biological robot seriously? The fact is that a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism is a causally closed effectively complete system that is completely meaningless unless you appeal to something outside the system. Sorry but under this self refuting causally closed effectively complete world view you are just brain chemicals, you are just the brains user illusion of “self” and nothing more substantive than the science project of vinegar and baking soda bubbling over!! Does the science project of vinegar and baking soda bubble over with “moral virtue” when it claims that (Disabled children) are “mutations” that have “value” because they “drive evolution”? Can the science project of vinegar and baking soda take the credit for its circular logic, self contradiction and moral bankruptcy?
The fact is that under a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism your truth claims have no more “truth” value than leaves blowing in the wind and “you”and the leaves including your belief that disabled children are “mutations” that have “value” because they “drive evolution” are destined for the same place (The Fertiliser Pit).
As I pointed out already your existential crisis and epistemological crisis not ours buddy!!
“Most handicaps seem like degenerative mutations”
“Those mutations are what drive evolution”
Furthermore, there’s a reason why Davros the villain in (Dr Who) who created the Daleks using eugenics to remove all compassion, mercy and empathy was based on Bertrand Russell. Russell was a proponent of eugenics and the sterilisation of the “defective”.
“Measures of sterilization should, in my opinion, be very definitely confined to persons who are mentally defective” (Bertrand Russell).
Reference: Bertrand Russell (1971). “Bertrand Russell's best: silhouettes in satire”, Allen & Unwin
“Eugenics itself, in large quantities or small, coming quickly or coming slowly, urged from good motives or bad, applied to a thousand people or applied to three, Eugenics itself is a thing no more to be bargained about than poisoning.” (G.K. Chesterton 1874 - 1936).
“There is one thing, and only one, in the whole universe which we know more about than we could learn from external observation. That one thing is Man. We do not merely observe men, we are men. In this case we have, so to speak, inside information; we are in the know.“ - (Clive Staples Lewis),
Reference: Mere Christianity Book I, Chapter 4, "What Lies behind the Law" Mere Christianity (1952).
There are many websites, actually. And none of the "proof" has ever met its burden of evidence. Hell, most of it can't even pass the laugh test.
Does the death penalty prevent murder? Even when people know the risks, they take them. Like you. God does not force you to look for Him. But you can. Can you say you know enough about Him to make an informed decision?
We don't just read books there is a website full of proof,
You really don't get it, do you? That's OK, not everyone does. It took me 15+ years. I will pray for you frozemud3. :-)
Strike three. Goodbye Ryuzaki.
And I'm telling you that even if you put it within the context of "a really powerful being's judgement," these are still war crimes.
Well, half of those things aren't even immoral. And the others, which are crimes, can be remedied by other punishments than "mass extermination of men, women, children, and infants."
Cliffe was all up in dat dudes grill
But the point is....... Where do those laws come from. They just didn't pop out on the paper. How do you think the slaves, In American, were freed? It's not like a clock timer went off & then said.... Ok you can go now...
Sir, we are arguing about the Bible.
You can't pick and choose from the Bible.
The Indian-American boy doesn't know what the word "objective" means! LOL
Like I said, adding in your fairy tale character doesn't fix that problem. Belief in him is also just your opinion, by that logic.
If an evil person destroys evidence of their evil doings doesn't admit guilt of their evil... rather it suggest avoidance of consequences
Nice
So is genocide moral or immoral, Mina?
There is no possible way life could have arisen by chance, i have spent a LOT of time on this subject. You see the 1st cell would have to be self replicating in order to survive and evolve. Since if it was not, it would simply die, like all cells do. Protein does not form by chance, you need dna. But dna needs protein. So 1st cell needed dna and protein all at same time at same place. Not to mention a cell wall ATP for energy, 100% impossible. I could see a car coming together easier by chance
Sorry Ryu, but you need to read up on ancient history if you think that slaves of the Hebrews were treated any differently than the slaves in every other ancient Near Eastern kingdom. And more importantly, how it was no different than the slavery of 300 years ago.