Give Me an Answer -
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 10 ก.ย. 2024
- Cliffe Knechtle has a great conversation with college students at a campus in the southwest US.
The "Give Me An Answer" ministry began as an outgrowth of the dialogues Cliffe Knechtle has had with students on various university campuses throughout the United States. These universities include the University of Maine, Harvard, MIT, University of Florida, University of Texas, University of Wisconsin, University of Minnesota, University of California Los Angeles, University of California San Diego, Berkeley, Stanford, University of Hawaii and the University of Washington. Cliffe spoke on these campuses in front of the Student Union or Library at noon for five to ten minutes. At the close of his initial remarks, he'd open up the time for questions and answers, which usually turned into a two to four hour dialogue with students. His crowd size ranged from 25 - 500 students at a time, and between classes, new students would join the discussion. This is an extremely effective way to reach a large number of university students with the Gospel of Christ.
![[UNCUT] The Loyal Pin ปิ่นภักดิ์ EP.6 (1/4)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/m05kZ2GDKXg/mqdefault.jpg)
It was sad to see the lack of critical thought in this video but it is a blessing to now be able to see (I'm an ex-agnostic) the failure of applying the atheist/agnostic worldview.
Praise the patience of our Creator! His mercy endured me. Thank you Jesus!
God bless you!
Amen 🙏
Cliffe is absolutely correct with the first girl. If you believe morality depends on the person then you have no right to be morally outraged by anything that happens.
Good job Cliffe. It really scares me knowing that people like these students are in high positions of power with no grounded moral compass.
Gates, Soros, Bilderberg, Hitler, Mengele etc. Vessels without Life
These students are NOT in high positions of power!!! You're delusional if you think so!!
Would you feel more comfortable if their morality was grounded in a book that justifies slavery, genocide, incest, homophobia, murdering disobedient children killing people who donated most but not all of their savings to the church, and said that rape victims should marry their rapists amongst other moral abominations?
"Well I ain't gonna be eatin dinner with you sir." 🤣 I could listen to Cliffe all day. I appreciate what you're doing sir, may the Lord bless you ❤️
So good right haha
You can always tell the kids that get up their with real, genuine questions and concerns from the kids that are just tryin to put on a show for their own intellectual vanity.
Scary seeing Moral Relativists/Subjectivists still existing despite how impossible it is to follow the deeply flawed theory
Indeed, they choose to follow this satanic ideology as it is a temporary reprieve from accountability, responsibility, guilt, and shame. It is a means to justify their actions to themselves by way of flawed or misguided logic. This ideology is amplified by virtue of the environment in which we live; especially if we surround ourselves with like-minded people. Our environment reinforces this destructive mentality.
The idea of living, doing, and saying whatever we wish without accountability to anyone is seductive and is the reason so many people adopt it. The reality is that this is a fantasy and accountability is real.
Strangely enough I don't see christians murdering people who work on the Sabbath. That's the morality you book preaches.
@@fishjj76 yeah the bible doesn't say people can murder others on the Sabbath
@@fishjj76 when Christ died he changed the day of the sabbath because he was the sabbath. Your wrong because your saying Christans but at this time it was Jews. Read your word sir
@@jwproductions8572 Jesus said he did not come to alter the law "by one jot or one tittle" (Matthew 5:18). Whether the Sabbath is Saturday or Sunday the Bible says the penalty for working on the Sabbath is death (Exodus 35:2). Should people who work on the Sabbath be killed or is Jesus wrong?
Oh my goodness. He has more patience than I do with these students !
These studients want things to easy blame God for all the wrongs these kids wants things there way.
Fruit of the Spirit
People will debate UNTIL something takes place in their lives that they don't like. The first lady with the glasses...
If someone tortured & murdered her family members, then she would claim that the action was objectively bad & wrong. Not just relatively bad & wrong but really bad & wrong.
She would seek justice & attempt to get the murderer put in jail for the rest of their lives. She was abstracting but she would change when something happened to her that she didn't like.
Cliffe, your teachings have been a great help in my walk with Christ. Keep on the good work.
Repent and believe in Jesus Christ to save you from your sins
Teach them Cliffe.
I like Cliffe's closing statement to the confused boy.
John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in." (7)
Standing ovation.
"Your objective morality is no more valid than someone else's."--By that definition, ALL morality is SUBJECTIVE then 😫
He's creating a dichotomy, IF the ultimate standard of Truth is in the mind of each of us THEN there is no objective truth, it's all subjective. But IF there is a God who is the standard for truth THEN his standard exists ultimately, therefore giving us the ability to use his standard as a measuring stick by which to determine what is OBJECTIVELY wrong or right.
@@JawboneJ
Well said!!
How many planets there are in the solar system does not depend on how many “we” think or agree as a society there are, or on what we would like there to be, or on how we would like to count them, or on what gives the greatest pleasure and happiness. In the same way it seems ridiculous to assert that scientific facts, mathematics and logic is based on what we subjectively prefer, it is incoherent to assert that morality depends on how individuals prefer it to be. Equally, you’re still left with the question why “ought” someone take your subjective claims to what is factual and moral seriously if some people and societies prefer and achieve the greatest happiness and greater pleasure from different things such as ignoring objective truth and committing rape and murder and genocide. In my opinion anti realism/moral subjectivism is synonymous with claiming that just because you decide there’s only one planet in the solar system instead of eight planets this makes it factually true. I also think that a lot of people confuse moral subjectivism with objective morality and unwittingly smuggle in objective morality which is why subjective morality (relativism) has the appearance of being appealing.
❤️
I think that if you pay close attention lots of strictly reductive materialists, atheists or philosophical naturalists get very confused between subjective morality and objective morality. So just to clarify. Subjective morality also called (relativism) not “relative” means that morality is based on what some particular person believes. So on this view whether something is moral or immoral depends on the subject that’s why it’s called subjectivism (relativism). The clue is in the name it’s relative to the “subject”!
In contrast on (objective morality) what’s right and wrong with regards to morality does not depend on the individuals subjective opinions or preferences but on the objective reality of the individual situation. (It’s relative to what’s objectively true)!!
The problem is that in my experience many (subjectivists), that or (anti realists) have actually confused morality that’s relative to situations, that is (objectivism) with morality that’s relative to subjectivism (relativism). When moral subjectivists or (anti realists) assert that morality is relative to situations they are right but that’s moral (objectivism) not moral subjectivism (relativism). They have confused the definition of (objectivism) with the definition of (subjectivism).
Nevertheless, moral subjectivists often try to offer a counter argument in the form of a moral dilemma. A killer asks you where your family is. Is it immoral to lie to save them ? The dilemma is if you tell the truth your family will be killed (This is bad). But if you protect your family you’ll have to lie (Also bad).
But hang on a minute because if morals are subjective as the (anti realist) claims then there’s no dilemma! The answer to the question is simple if you think it’s more immoral to lie then it is “for you”. If you think that it’s more moral to protect your family then it is “for you”. There is no dilemma on relativism because whatever you choose is right “for you”. For the moral relativist (subjectivist) both options are equally legitimate because there is no (objective) right or wrong decision. However, for the (moral objectivist) there is a right response and a wrong response in this particular situation. Under objective morality yes it’s wrong to lie to protect a thief or killer from the police but it’s not wrong to lie to protect your family from a killer. And this is true for anyone facing the same situation. On subjectivism the subject gets to decide what’s right and wrong and he’s always right by definition!! On (moral objectivism) it’s the (objective) circumstances that determine what’s right and wrong. There’s an obvious difference!! But many strictly reductive materialists, atheists or philosophical naturalists who want to reject objective morality because it points to a supreme ontological ground for universal paradigmatic truth, they mistake (objective morality) for subjective morality.
Is it always wrong to lie ? Well it depends not on the “subject”, that’s relativism but on the (objective) situation, that’s (objectivism).
So in conclusion what have we learned? We’ve learned that (objective morality) always depends on the situation or circumstances. Relativism is when right and wrong depend on or are relative to the person.
Secondly, moral dilemmas based on circumstances like the example given are always based on (objectivism) not “subjectivism”.
Thirdly, if we “ought” to save our family from a killer then morality is clearly “objective” not subjective.
The irony is that moral subjectivists think that ethical dilemmas like the example I gave demonstrate that “subjective” morality is true but ironically it illustrates exactly the opposite.
Heaps of hours spent listening to you Cliffe and love all of it. The only thing I’d say and in this moment especially is satan is the reason there is bad. Good is a person and so is evil: the church today has ran from the spiritual warfare needed to smash the devils holds on people but the whole Bible is packed with warfare in the spiritual realm and Paul tells us heaps that he was in the fight. Bless you brother keep it up 🙏🏼
The statement "there is not one standard of objective morality" is itself presented
as one standard of objective morality. Therefore it is a self-refuting statement,
and as such, its logical converse must necessarily be correct:
_There is necessarily a standard of objective morality._
Amen! Thank you thank you.
Takes a lot of patience to deal with guys like this student.
that last dude was an intellectual liar. he lied just so he could support his argument.
the ignorance of kids these days is so messed up its astounding.
GT-Oldschool it’s called “ad hoc” fallacy
You are so right, which why I'm so angry with these professors, their doing it on purpose!!!
The first girl was an intellectually liar. The last dude has beef with God, not necessarily unbelief.
What the heck. It is so clear! If you don't get it, what else can convince you that there is objective absolute moral?
The first two girls don't know the difference between "Objective" and "Subjective"
God is good, all the time. All the time, God is good.
The thing about claiming subjective morality is, you can never forget the other person's perspective. Bad for you, good for them. You can subjectively say whatever you want, but it also requires you never call anyone a murder or thief. That is a moral judgment you are engaged in there, & subjectively you lack a reason to hold them accountable. Unless you choose to say that your subjective opinion is some how greater. If everything is equal, how can you claim that? You rationally cannot, but you can rationalize it away.
It is all an intellectual exercise until you apply what you preach to your life. Painful & true. I have been less than what I should have been, for myself, for those that Love me, & for those that trusted me. So have ALL of you.
We need someone to forgive us & lead the way. God will do that for you. God Bless you all, to apply what you preach.
I love Him , i can feel His love
Cliffe really made emphasis on telling the gospel in his closing communication.
He knows, I know, time is growing shorter for the unsaved...
Luke 12:20
(NLT)
20 “But God said to him, ‘You fool! You will die this very night. Then who will get everything you worked for?’
You're doing so good Cliff, Keep it up!!!
His face at 14:03 LOOOOOOOOOOOOL. "is this guy thinking? Why do I even bother"
Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." (2)
14:10 look at how disappointed cliffe looks with that kid 😂😂😂😂
Of course, a college student need to think and act like a college student, and they think irrationally That's even I, become disappointed.
A couple of things.
The first woman needs to live that out. When someone steals from her, she needs to not go after them. It wasn't wrong & thus the law is. She won't do that. Therefore, she cannot live it out.
As to this other man. You cannot say this over soul doesn't care, but my life is good. You cannot say, life is hard, but mine isn't, but I had to work for it & that was hard. You cannot say, 'Meals are everywhere.', without saying, 'That dirt I ate last week was filling.'. I point this out only to say he needs to work out what he means by what he is saying. He might have a point there, but I have as little clue about it as he can articulate. His thinking is to nebulous.
The first is unwilling to think outside her beliefs. The second is unwilling to clarify. I hope they work that out. I also hope they think about what Cliffe is saying.
Objective morality is required to assert laws are just or unjust. If it isn't objectively true, even if you have it currently wrong, then it isn't right or wrong. Law hinges on the idea somethings should be disallowed & others allowed. One is right, the other wrong. Subjective morality does afford you such a distinction. At best it is the powerful over the weak.
Great Job Cliffe, God Bless all you guys & those that hears you.
@James Gray
Yep. She should read more history. People constantly are doing horrible things to each other & often it is spun so that it appears moral. The real truth is they can, wanted to, & the spin is just to make them look good. None of it is about justice & all of it is based off the fact that they would do it to you if you don't tow that line. Fear is what kept people in line there, not ethics. It is a very subjective morality on display.
Many of these young students can’t follow Cliff, they don’t get the message. Sad is that most of these young atheist students DON ´T WANT to understand Cliff. Thank you Cliff for what you dienend do, your family as well.
Everybody is clear & knows killing & torture is bad & wrong. How ? Through their own moral awareness & moral experience of life.
One of the best ways to know if something is bad & wrong is in how each individual reacts when something is done to them that they think is bad & wrong. Reaction is one of the best ways to know.
wow. beautiful story about Mr. Griffith. Thank you for sharing it.
24:50 wow I love this analogy
Praise God :)
the last guy is so ignorant, he is more willing to blame God for every bad thing that happens but refuse to acknowledge him for everything good that happens to us.
True, and that is just like a fool who blames the sun for the darkness.
For the second girl she seems to be saying that a premise can be proven valid through a society's or culture's agreeance. Therefore through that logic, if the consensus of people in a given area believe that 2+2=5 (with the same principles of math applying), though it may be the majority belief, that does not prove that claim to be true. Objective morality is the only possible answer because there are universal truths that were not created through opinion, but through fact, as 2+2 does not equal 5 and killing innocent people is not justified. And technically subjective morality/relativism proves objective morality because a large number of people accept it, therefore it must be fact.
Dam this guy Cliff whoever he is, is taking these kids to school... Those kids got hit by an intellectual bus!!! Get em Cliff!!
They should be paying Cliffe for the knowledge.
Jesus is the way the truth and the life no one comes to the father accept though him
You need to penetrate deeper in your thinking. When you make a moral judgement, then whose subjective & relative moral standard are you judging by to make that moral judgement ?
"Morals are still entirely subjective to God if he creates them, they are nothing more than the mere whims of what he decides is good and bad."
But God didn't create objective morality, He instilled it in us because we were made in His image.
Objective morals, like the Ten Commandments, are a reflection of God's character. They are not a CREATION of His they are a reflection of WHO He is.
"We can support our judgments with good reasons..." Without God, "good reasons" are nothing but opinions.
To say that nothing is absolute is a contradiction in itself. Because for everything to be relative, there has to be the absolute that is that everything is relative. So by claiming that there are no absolutes, you are setting down an absolute. Relativism doesn't work.
yes!
I didn't comment about that but that is definitely what I know it is.
If the source of all morality is exclusively from the humans and the cultures from which they come it is subject to the views and temporal opinions enforced by those individuals at that particular time.
Hence it is not and could not ever be "objective."
This is a good example of how being overly open minded means eventually the mind is full of anything which = nothing or grounded in nothing
Actually that is only the definition of cultural relativism, not all ethical theories. Though ethical theories may not stem from a omnipresent set of morals that just permeate the universe, they can be objective in the sense that they can be explained and backed up using a reasonable argument. "If we can support our judgement with good reasons, and explain why those reasons matter, it is absurd to say that ethical judgments are mere opinions." -James Rachels from Subjectivism in Ethics
version1/: you have 'an opinion' which is a relative perspective.. but i'm going to say that what i think is absolute ... and i win, cause my opinion is special... euraka!
version2/ "If everybody says someting is right, i can still say it is objectively wrong." Or how to exclude oneself from everybody
For example: if everybody were to think it is okay to eat shellfish, it is still objectively wrong!
The statement "There is no one standard of objective morality" *is* one standard of objective morality.
It is an incorrect objective standard, but an objective standard nonetheless. Therefore it refutes itself
and must be understood to be false, and by extension, its logical converse must be true.
That true logical converse is the following:
There is indeed a standard of objective morality.
Well said!! And this is comedy gold because it’s just so self evident that objective morality and absolute truth is real. Because the proof of this is in its denial!! This is hilarious and it is just sophistry and prevarication to argue that morality can be grounded in the subjective opinion of fallible human beings. You can’t deny the logic of objective truth and morality. It reminds me of Aristotle’s debate with the Sophists.
I’m not making any appeals to authority but Aristotle debated the sophists centuries ago regarding metaphysical truths and the (truth) of the law of non contradiction and the sophists naively responded….
“You can’t prove that Aristotle!!
because we could just come along and deny metaphysics and the law of non contradiction?”
Aristotle responds brilliantly using a transcendental argument. Aristotle pointed out that when you deny something that’s so fundamental and paradigmatic as metaphysics and the laws of logic, that is the foundations of science itself the proof of that thing is that it’s assumed in its denial. It’s the same with objective morality, consciousness and prescriptive metaphysical presuppositions such as the laws of logic.
I rest my case!!
@@georgedoyle7971 You are correct on on every point.
I would just like to say that appeals to authority are not always wrong or fallacious -- if you appeal to the right authority, it's logically valid.
cont'd
, renounced his atheism a few years back and accepted the existence of a divine intelligence behind it all. He wrote: "What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together" ( There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind, 2007, p. 75)."
Well said!! Anthony Flew also commented on the evidence for fine tuning. According to Flew….
“This fine tuning has been explained in two ways. Some scientists have said the fine tuning is evidence for divine design; many others have speculated that our universe is one of multiple others-a ‘multiverse’-with the difference that ours happened to have the right conditions for life. Virtually no major scientist today claims that the fine tuning was purely a result of chance factors at work in a single universe” (Anthony Flew).
Equally, It speaks volumes that the physicist Leonard Susskind who’s coming from a non religious perspective recently admitted that the present inability of physics to explain the fine tuning of the universe that is essential for life appears to leave an opening for a Designer.
“I have to say that if [string theory fails], as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature's fine tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as [Intelligent Design].” - (Leonard Susskind the father of modern string theory)
According to the English physicist Paul Davies a true scientific explanation, “is like a single well-aimed bullet. The idea of a multiverse replaces the rationally ordered real world with an infinitely complex charade and makes the whole idea of ‘explanation’ meaningless.” Richard Swinburne is just as strong in his disdain for the multiverse explanation: “It is crazy to postulate a trillion (causally unconnected) universes to explain the features of one universe, when postulating one entity (God) will do the job.”
“These universes would never be directly observable; we couldn’t even meaningfully say whether they existed ‘before’, ‘after’ or ‘alongside’ our own” ( Richard Swinburne)
Imagine entering a hotel room on your next vacation. The CD player on the bedside table is softly playing a track from your favorite recording. The framed print over the bed is identical to the image that hangs over the fireplace at home. The room is scented with your favorite fragrance. You shake your head in amazement and drop your bags on the floor.
You’re suddenly very alert. You step over to the minibar, open the door, and stare in wonder at the contents. Your favorite beverages. Your favorite cookies and candy. Even the brand of bottled water you prefer.
You turn from the mini bar, then, and gaze around the room. You notice the book on the desk: it’s the latest volume by your favorite author. You glance into the bathroom, where personal care and grooming products are lined up on the counter, each one as if it was chosen specifically for you. You switch on the television; it is tuned to your favorite channel.
Chances are, with each new discovery about your hospitable new environment, you would be less inclined to think it was all a mere coincidence, right? You might wonder how the hotel managers acquired such detailed information about you. You might marvel at their meticulous preparation. You might even double-check what all this is going to cost you. But you would certainly be inclined to believe that someone knew you were coming.
Let’s take the most basic laws of physics. It has been calculated that if the value of even one of the fundamental constants-the speed of light or the mass of an electron, for instance-had been to the slightest degree different, then no planet capable of permitting the evolution of human life could have formed.
The recent popularity of this argument has highlighted a new dimension of the laws of nature. ‘The more I examine the universe and study the details of its architecture,’ writes physicist Freeman Dyson, ‘the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense knew we were coming.’ In other words, the laws of nature seem to have been crafted so as to move the universe toward the emergence and sustenance of life. This is the anthropic principle, popularized by such thinkers as Martin Rees, John Barrow, and John Leslie.
In his book Infinite Minds, John Leslie, a leading anthropic theorist, argues that fine tuning is best explained by divine design. He says that he is impressed not by particular arguments for instances of fine tuning, but by the fact that these arguments exist in such profusion. ‘If, then, there were aspects of nature’s workings that appeared very fortunate and also entirely fundamental,’ he writes, ‘then these might well be seen as evidence specially favoring belief in God.
Good job.
Without God, there could be no love and no free will, and yet there are.
I don’t understand how people can be so dense.
The reality of a Creator, a designer, after understanding DNA, has brought more Scientists to this understanding.
"The astounding complexity of the DNA code was the main reason Sir Antony Flew, the late world-famous philosopher who had been the leading atheist in England
Well I don't really blame him for getting a little heated while talking to people who (think they) subscribe to ethical subjectivism. I do blame him for implying a false alternative, claiming that if you are not a moral relativist, then only other option is that God created objective morals.
The first girl, Cliff is not nailing it home! She need to be let known that for her to live out her subjective morality, it’s not just about her holding to “murdering innocent children is evil to her and morally ok for others, but they just disagree.” She needs to be told for her to be consistent with subjective morality: she needs to believe that the person who holds to raping and murdering children as morally fine is just as correct as her view of it being morally wrong. Again, for her to be consistent, she actually needs to be ok with it. There is no objectivity so any moral outrage she displays shows her as being inconsistent with a purely subjective moral worldview.
2 things: 1) Are there objective morals if God does exist? What does it mean to be moral if God creates morals? 2) Well of course reason doesn't have moral values, it is a tool we use to determine moral values and duties. It is how we derive ethical theories. To try to prove this ill ask you a question: Would it be wrong to torture innocents if God permitted it/did it himself? Would God ever permit such a thing?
Wow just seeing how the average student thinks (which was also me at one point in time), just goes to show how morally lost we are as a society and culture. It’s as if we have learned nothing from the 20th century and the many atrocities.
We’ve always been morally lost and america is one of the greatest countries to exist we absolutely have a problem with evil im not arguing we don’t but compare us to any nation that has ever existed better morals better quality of life
Everyone knows what is right & wrong by REACTION. When actions are done to any human being they REACT. Through & by REACTION they will tell you whether something is good or bad & right or wrong.
Buddhists can't tell you why suffering is bad & Nirvana is good. Everyone relies upon God's morality whether they believe in Him or not.
What is sad is how delusional & self centered people can be and how they want to pick morals only convenient to them..
Reason in-and-of itself has no moral values & duties. Reason can adjudicate over moral values & duties that you have already adopted.
Reason cannot tell you that killing someone is really bad & wrong.
Therefore, in the absence of the existence of God all becomes completely relative. Cliffe is 100 percent spot on.
Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life." (22)
Nobody's. I make moral decisions based on reason.
“Based on reason”
Ho the irony!! “Reason” is a metaphysical presupposition that can not be “proven”, justified or grounded in a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism that clearly excludes metaphysical realities. Prove your first principles!! I’ll wait!!
its only a matter of time before "ada2step" comes and says "YEEEEAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH" hahahaha
New graphics
Peace in our Lord John 14:27
Why wouldn't he say those things? how do you know he wouldn't
Rational > Emotions , in a debate.
Excellent video! Annoying, sad, ignorant students, but still, very nice talk.
=)
Wow, wow, and wow. I can't believe they have a problem believing in THE CREATOR of the world, but no problem believing in something man made. WOW.
Cliffe should be starting to speak at Texas State University in a few minutes! (This may be the chief start of his fall campus tour.)
deep down people know it's wrong,they just don't care because they have subjective morals.If they like it they can do it,who's to say they can't.That's the whole point
Something is indeed broken within everyone who accepts subjective morality enough to remain silent about atrocities and about “bought love” or slavery.
I would ask that first female whom does she love sincerely, and if someone were to murder that person she loves, would she seek justice for that loved one if the person who kills her loved one believes that's the right thing to do? Moral relativism seeks no justice since the killer is only doing what he/she believes to be right from their own perspective.
First girl is not understanding what morality is. If morality is relative it isn’t morality.
The statement "there is no objective standard of morality" is itself a subjective and made-up standard of morality,
which is neither objectively wrong nor right: It is merely a personal preference, and as such, it can be (and should be) disregarded by critical thinkers.
The objective truth on this subject, conversely, is that there is indeed an objective standard of morality, and this objective standard comes from God.
Well said!!
@@georgedoyle7971 Thanks, and God bless you!
So are you saying that the men who flew the planes into the WTC's were not psychopaths?
I said "ALL men (psychopaths excluded)."
The last gentleman missed the point and distorted the truth. Cliff gave a good example of love and in the christian worldview we are to love others as ourselves. Therefore the nazi analogy was not properly thought out because they only loved themselves. So the student was right because he used a distorted use of love. Abused women claim their abusers love them. that’s not biblical love. that’s why idol worship is bad because humans tend to do silly things for love. Therefore his analogy fails because it is love for a selfish reason. they still choose to love. i am not sure why he said it has nothing to do with free will. He actually proved Cliff’s point.
There is a video on TH-cam of the story in the end he mentions about the train. I knew God or thought I did, and when I saw this video on TH-cam that I mentioned, I finally understood Jesus's sacrifice. Knowing that God allowed free will, and didn't force us to learn him, but sent his own son to die for us while we just sin away...... man. Can't describe love any better way then that.
Jesus knew what He was doing tho. Awful analogy. Detracts from the deliberate sacrifice Jesus made for us.
Good! You're correct God cannot be moral since He is the source of morality. I agree! Hence as I posted before the leader cannot be a follower because that is illogical. The source of Good (God) is the authority of morality, the leader, the source, the foundation. You perceive that God has to be moral to His own morality, He cannot because He is the source of Morality because He is described as Good in the Bible. Thus the only source of Good is God, read Romans Ch. 3 if you get the chance.
13:27
That's just not true. Some people believe killing and torture are not bad and wrong.
Cliff Was Mr griffin right or wrong? I have been confronted with a question similar.
Wow, that first girl was rude and ignorant... and that's coming from an athiest
I feel I should jump in here to clarify somethings.There are things God by His nature wouldn't say or order.Like He won't say things like ''don't obey me'' or ''stop worshiping me and worship satan'' or ''oppress the poor'' or ''kill the innocent'' and so on...at least by Christian theology.So we need to be clear who are we talking about when we say ''God''
So the main topic of these quotes seems to be how incredible it is that a planet can harbor life. There are probably more than 170 billion galaxies in the observable universe, each with billions to trillions of stars, each star containing an average of more than 2 planets (recent estimate by Kepler), I really don't think that it is that amazing that at least one has the characteristics to be able to harbor life. What are the chances? 1 in 100 trillion? Still no need for divine intervention.
You said if God tortured innocents was deemed wrong then it would be appealing to another moral objective moral standard. That is my point. We can rationalize why murder and torture are bad, but that is irrelevant if morals come from God. It wouldnt matter that we are treating people unjustly, as long as God permitted it, it would be "moral." We can still have objective morals w/o God. Maybe not objective in the omnipresent sense, but a moral code that we can all agree upon created with reason.
If I believe objective morals exist or I don't? And you make no sense, if you trick a person, that's deception. If you torment somebody, you are being cruel to them, if you are arrogant, you are arrogant.
Without God, there could be no objective right and wrong, and yet there are.
The mere fact the Student said he wouldn’t be bummed out to findout his GF has been paid by his Father to love him, proves he would say anything to argue their is a GOD…
Really sad
God is not your servant -- you are his servant.
Amen
Something you need to think about: In the absence of the existence of God, all moral value & moral worth, all moral & ethical systems etc…. would all be human created & [ in that sense ] they would all be completely subjective & relative.
In other words, everything would be reduced to subjectivism & relativism. You would have NO possible way of judging anything as being really good or bad & really right or wrong.
Well said!!
Do most college students think like this?
For the sake of humanity let's hope not
Of course there are people who think slaughtering innocent babies is ok, but Slaughtering babies is STILL ABSOLUTELY WRONG. She thinks someone is taking away a person's free will. Cliffe You have a lot of patience.
Try and live it out Relativism. Meaning - If someone hits you in the face dont complain because for that person it is right. Or if someone rapes you dont complain because morality is relative. Rape maybe wrong for you, but for others, It isnt. Thats how you live it out.. But I bet you they wont be able to..
Looking at mount rushmore... i concluded the faces must have been carved out by an intelligence to have that kind of complexity. Then i looked a the mountains around it and saw they must have in intelligently designed to look like mountains! eureka.. :s
Both of your above conclusions are true.
Thank you for your agreement and support, and God bless you!
=)
That is not even the point i was adressing.. the mistake is that one does not follow from the other.
Recognizing design from complexity by comparing it to simplicity is wrong.. and then concluding that therefor the simplicity must have been designed as well is ridiculous.. the argument just does not stand.
But kudos for the enthusiasm ;)
P.G. Burgess ...and yet both of the conclusions that you stated are definitely true: Both the presidential images and the mountains are clearly the results of intelligent design.
Thank you for your agreement and support, and God bless you!
=)
***** ooh.. we have a funny guy! in that case, god bless you too!! **wink wink**@sarcasm.com
P.G. Burgess You misspelled the name God: It is always capitalized.
...(continued).Who is this Lawgiver can be found in ancient texts that speak of Him,and there are some in most religions(Bible,Koran...).So what He specifically wants is written in these Holy Texts,depending in what religion you choose (think makes more sense).Those texts differ one from the other in some detail about this Being and His Will,but they still have grounds in the belief of objective morals,which means your whole argument doesn't follow logically.Do you understand now?
Give me an example. Who wouldn't know killing & torture is bad & wrong ? Tell me and I will prove to you that they do.
Yes, you understand what I was saying. Now here are the problems what I have with God being the only source of morality: Torturing babies is absolutely moral If god decides on a whim that it is. Being able to reason that it is unfair and unjust has nothing to do with the morality. Despite the fact that God says "do not kill," it is rationally the appropriate thing to do in many cases in order to prevent much worse and as
“Torturing babies”
Appeal to hypocrisy fallacy, (Appeal to Emotion Fallacy), (Appeals to Extremes Fallacy),
The absolute object of reality and existence by necessity does not act on a “whim”. The only thinking that leads to acting on a “whim” and believing torturing babies is Ok is moral subjectivism/relativism as it is clearly arbitrary and ad hoc. How could morality possibly be grounded in the finite and non absolute? How could morality possibly be grounded in the subjective opinion of fallible human beings? It’s total and utter gibberish and is self refuting.
"If god exists, he determines what is moral, right?"
No. God IS what is right.
What is moral, is a reflection of who God is. Because He is unchangeable, what is moral is unchangeable also.
Did the towns that God told His people to "slaughter," live morally in your opinion?
she wants her worldview to be right so bad. The World isn't looking for Jesus or the Holy Spirit. its very clear.
Sinners will not go to heaven. The world was made through Jesus Christ. If you ignore Jesus you don't get eternal life. see www.gotquestions.org