So now I view God indifferently if not warily. A being that I fully believe exists - as Chesterton said, “It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything.” - but whose relationship to me is as an Early toying with an earthworm.This may be seen as bleak and nihilistic. However, it is well to recall that what inspired the Golden Age of ancient Greece was that man realized that if he was to matter. If he was to count for anything, he would have to make a name to be remembered at all, he would have to be virtuous. To be what the gods - because immortal and thus to whom nothing could matter - could never be.
No OP, I responded to you that the Cosmological Argument is more than sufficient to prove the existence of an Almighty God, but the godless moderator deleted my post and threatened to ban me.
Maybe try not to be an asshole? I saw your comments, you proved my point perfectly.
"Open Rebuke is better than secret love.""Thou shalt not hate they neighbor in your heart. Thou shalt in any wise REBUKE thy neighbor and not suffer sin upon them."I don't compromise with willful sinners, unlike 99% of the fake "believers" in the United States, I actually live by what I believe, and I'm not afraid to call a godless fool a godless fool.
Imagine if jesus talked like this.
Imagine if God were real.
"Without Objective Morality, they could be a murderer or rapist or thief or anything and nobody would have any way of prosecuting them and holding them responsible for their crime."Utterly false. A subjective morality that had sufficient support would allow for punishment.
It's you who is the fool. God is philosophically self falsifiable. Not believing in God is not.
Take a philosophy 101 course in any major University. Truth and Morality are absolutely 100% Objective. the second Postulate of the Copernican Principle requires Truth and Law to be Objective, both Physical Truth and Law and Moral Truth and Law are Objective. The first postulate of Relativity is a re-hash of the Second Postulate of the Copernican Principle."The Laws of the Universe are the same for all of space and time," and "The Laws of the Universe are the same for every observer."So there is no such thing as "Subjective Truth" nor "Subjective Morality".Atheists are delusional.
@WadeDanielSmith2 stop trolling other users here. if someone wishes to be athiest they are free to do so without gou telling them they are dellusional
@WadeDanielSmith2 'Truth' is contextual and is objective or subjective depending on what specifically we're talking about. Mainly that 'truth' only really makes sense between two intelligent agents relaying information.But I assume you're using truth as synonymous with facts about reality - In that case, yes, reality is indeed objective. Things are objective, because they are true independent of a mind - including a gods mind. Morality on the other hand, does not exist anywhere outside of a mind. If there were no life anywhere in the universe, there could be no 'morality'. Morality is subjective because there is no yardstick by which we measure what is/is not moral. Now, I know you'll point to your god and screech that that's your yardstick - but that's not an objective source. Granting you that your god exists, its positions on morality are no more objective than anyone elses. You don't have objective morality, you have might-makes-right.Also, I thought you were finished making unhinged references to things that in no way benefit your post? Remember when I made fun of you for talking about warp drives in a conversation about whether a god existed or not? WTF does the Copernican Principle have to do with morality, law or objectivity? I'd swear you just write down buzzwords and throw them out to try and seem like you have some clue about what you're talking about.The Copernican Principle is just the idea that the Earth isn't the centre of the universe and that humans aren't specially important to the universe. There's nothing in there that even remotely relates to what you said.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
Hey why was my update removed? It wasn't negatively talking about another user, it was clearly pointing out that user was being negative. Seems a bit backwards if you ask me.
no idea... usually if an update breaks any rules the whole question is removed. if you had no message from g@g about it then its more likely a glitch in the system
Thats just it I did get a message, thats how I know why it was removed.
so why was it removed? if you had a message telling you what you asking me for is more of a question. i may have an m on my avatar but im not the all seeing eye lol
I did XD, it said it was removed because the update was negatively taking about a user, but it wasn't. The update only pointed out that the user was being negative.
Thats why I'm confused lol I didn't even insult him, infact I don't know if you saw the update, I was saying you shouldn't be rude when you want to change someone's thinking.
did it mention the users name? that would be a member post so would be removed... if not i dont know what the problem would be. if however its the user i think it is the irony is that they are a site troll and in my mind should be removed from g@g anyway but thats a whole other story
People don't get their morals from the religion. If you did, you would be unable to choose which parts of religion to call good and which to call bad.
XD, you know... I don't think I have either.
That doesn't explain why so many in positions of religious authority are pedophiles and the majority of prison inmates are religious. Your logic couldn't punch its way out of a paper bag.People have evolved morals, they don't come from an imaginary beardo in the sky.
Nobody can know what's moral on their own. Must have a moral law giver.Who is to say those prisoners are really Christians and if they were really remorseful or not.
It's just a statistic. If you got morals from a "law giver" you wouldn't be able to pick and choose which of that "law giver's" morals to accept.