This fellow is avoiding the difficult issues. Particularly, how is any imagining of God objective? How is any religious text unambiguous? They clearly are not,so looking for objectivity he is simply kicking the can down the road…
------ He is not saying that our thoughts of God are objective. He is saying that we experience morality as objective in certain absolutes that we say should be binding apart from what we want or desire. For example, cruelly torturing children to death is absolutely wrong regardless of what someone might think or say. And then, given that we hold certain moral values to be absolute, ie, objective, it makes sense to ask where these values come from or to wonder at their existence. And this asking or wondering has a sense in the context of religious faith in a God who is intrinsically good. He is saying then that it makes sense to say that these moral values come from a perfectly good God. This is not a claim to objective knowledge of God. On the contrary, it is an attempt to show that the nature of faith in God is rooted in certain practical considerations of the wonder of moral absolutes and the extraordinary beauty of the world.
@@patrickhorn1708 Morality can not be objective if all we do is following the subjective orders of some individual, even if he is supposed to be a god, especially when that god has ordered the murder and massacre of so many in the bible. If that is where we really get our values from, then we are doomed. To me it seems theologians like the above have no idea what objectivity really means, and their skewed, distorted portrayal of their god's awful primitive morality is just beyond belief. I always wonder... do they really believe this? Have they really deluded themselves this much? Or are they just lying.
@@Ploskkky You just believe that they are like what you said, which, I think, has almost nothing to do with what he proposed in this video, because you don't understand or choose not to understand. And he is a philosopher, not a theologian.
@@Ploskkky Do you think, then, that things like wanton murder and massacre are wrong? Objectively wrong?--i.e., wrong no matter what any one individual might think? If so, then what do you posit as the source of that objective absolute?
Would you say that believing in something that is not real improves your "well-being?" Or does it harm your "well-being?" How does someone prove it is real? I ask that because there are now 5 popular God-breathed and inspired Word of God books all written by ordinary men with amazing stories often copied from older myths, and each one claims it is from "God." But none of them have evidence to convince anyone except the people who desperately WANT to believe in the particular Book they selected. May I ask what benefits you would see for someone "believing" in the Qur'an or some version of the Bible for example?
Kassandra Echebima Actually, no. I have no control over anyone to reply or not, and it would not have made any difference if you did or not. Since you have been unwilling to reply to my questions, I imagine you just don't want to take the trouble. That's OK. Wishing you God's Love, Truth and Peace
One of the best minds in historys says this . Next to him Cottingham is a mental midget. "Belief is a wise wager. Granted that faith cannot be proved, what harm will come to you if you gamble on its truth and it proves false? If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation, that He exists."Blaise Pascal :
@@brumafriend The Pensees are not reducible to the 'Wager'. The Wager is the summation of a long discussion about human finitude and wellbeing. I don't see how the need to make an existential commitment to God makes him out to be a tyrant.
But one cannot 'believe' on the basis of an insurance policy. God, if he does exist would see through the subterfuge . The best one can do is examine all the evidence and make an honest assessment to himself as to whether God exists.
Why believe because it gives a lot of people peace of mind just be a person with a moral compass and it'll bring peace :)
Original article in Quanta:
www.quantamagazine.org/a-new-thermodynamics-theory-of-the-origin-of-life-20140122/
This fellow is avoiding the difficult issues. Particularly, how is any imagining of God objective? How is any religious text unambiguous? They clearly are not,so looking for objectivity he is simply kicking the can down the road…
------ He is not saying that our thoughts of God are objective. He is saying that we experience morality as objective in certain absolutes that we say should be binding apart from what we want or desire. For example, cruelly torturing children to death is absolutely wrong regardless of what someone might think or say. And then, given that we hold certain moral values to be absolute, ie, objective, it makes sense to ask where these values come from or to wonder at their existence. And this asking or wondering has a sense in the context of religious faith in a God who is intrinsically good. He is saying then that it makes sense to say that these moral values come from a perfectly good God. This is not a claim to objective knowledge of God. On the contrary, it is an attempt to show that the nature of faith in God is rooted in certain practical considerations of the wonder of moral absolutes and the extraordinary beauty of the world.
@@patrickhorn1708 Morality can not be objective if all we do is following the subjective orders of some individual, even if he is supposed to be a god, especially when that god has ordered the murder and massacre of so many in the bible. If that is where we really get our values from, then we are doomed.
To me it seems theologians like the above have no idea what objectivity really means, and their skewed, distorted portrayal of their god's awful primitive morality is just beyond belief. I always wonder... do they really believe this? Have they really deluded themselves this much? Or are they just lying.
@@Ploskkky You just believe that they are like what you said, which, I think, has almost nothing to do with what he proposed in this video, because you don't understand or choose not to understand. And he is a philosopher, not a theologian.
@@Ploskkky Do you think, then, that things like wanton murder and massacre are wrong? Objectively wrong?--i.e., wrong no matter what any one individual might think? If so, then what do you posit as the source of that objective absolute?
why believe? for your own well-being
Would you say that believing in something that is not real improves your "well-being?" Or does it harm your "well-being?" How does someone prove it is real?
I ask that because there are now 5 popular God-breathed and inspired Word of God books all written by ordinary men with amazing stories often copied from older myths, and each one claims it is from "God." But none of them have evidence to convince anyone except the people who desperately WANT to believe in the particular Book they selected.
May I ask what benefits you would see for someone "believing" in the Qur'an or some version of the Bible for example?
yes, if you did not believe that I would reply you, you would not have typed that message.
Kassandra Echebima Actually, no. I have no control over anyone to reply or not, and it would not have made any difference if you did or not. Since you have been unwilling to reply to my questions, I imagine you just don't want to take the trouble. That's OK.
Wishing you God's Love, Truth and Peace
Truth, yes
Peace
One of the best minds in historys says this . Next to him Cottingham is a mental midget.
"Belief is a wise wager. Granted that faith cannot be proved, what harm will
come to you if you gamble on its truth and it proves false? If you gain,
you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without
hesitation, that He exists."Blaise Pascal
:
Pascal's wager is, like, the worst argument for God which portrays him as a tyrant more than anything else.
@@brumafriend The Pensees are not reducible to the 'Wager'. The Wager is the summation of a long discussion about human finitude and wellbeing. I don't see how the need to make an existential commitment to God makes him out to be a tyrant.
But one cannot 'believe' on the basis of an insurance policy. God, if he does exist would see through the subterfuge . The best one can do is examine all the evidence and make an honest assessment to himself as to whether God exists.
This is how you can prove faith, practice what you beleieve. You have a problem proving faith because you have none.