The Moral Argument for God's Existence

[Roy]

Was he lying or did he just forget our last discussion?

No and no. He probably remembers your last 'discussion' as being your usual endless false claims, unsupported assertions and evasions.

Right, you made an unfounded assertion. And I called you on it.

And I supported my assertion. When are you going to support yours?

I bet you think your god's law regarding eating lobster no longer applies

So what is your point?

That either your god's law changes, or you ignore it.

[shunyadragon]

Except you can not demonstrate that the existence of God is a false premise.

Your asking to prove a negative, which is a fallacy. Do realize the problem when your premise is the same as your conclusion.

[seer]

No and no. He probably remembers your last 'discussion' as being your usual endless false claims, unsupported assertions and evasions.

What false claim? Be specific.

And I supported my assertion. When are you going to support yours?

Really? Prove universal, objective moral values don't exist. That is the claim that you made.

That either your god's law changes, or you ignore it.

Where did I ever say that some of God's commands couldn't be situational?

[Tassman]

Really? Prove universal, objective moral values don't exist. That is the claim that you made.

There’s no evidence that they do. Morals and ethics arose to enable the survival of our communities and they adapt according to the needs of said communities. We see the precursors of such behaviour among other higher primates, which further underscores the natural evolutionary nature of the process.

Where did I ever say that some of God's commands couldn't be situational?

Ah, so they're not universal absolute moral values at all.

[JimL]

I wasn't claiming to demonstrate the existence of God, I was answering Thinker's claim that God's law would be arbitrary, which it would not be. Then you stuck your big nose in.

If murder is a sin, and god orders the murder of men, women and children, then gods law is arbitrary.

[Roy]

And I supported my assertion. When are you going to support yours?

Really? Prove universal, objective moral values don't exist. That is the claim that you made.

And as I said, I supported that claim: "Because there's no evidence they exist. Because there's no reason for them to exist. Because there's no need for them to exist. Because those who claim they exist use fallacious arguments. Because those that claim they exist disagree on what they are and where they originate."

If universal, objective moral values existed, the moral codes supposedly based on them would be consistent. They are not. Therefore either there are no such values, or moral codes aren't based on them.

Now are you going to prove your claim that there is a law of God, or will you continue to be a disgusting evasive hypocrite?

[seer]

If universal, objective moral values existed, the moral codes supposedly based on them would be consistent. They are not. Therefore either there are no such values, or moral codes aren't based on them.

That just does not follow. Perhaps we just get things wrong, or misunderstand. That tells us nothing about their existence or non-existence

Now are you going to prove your claim that there is a law of God, or will you continue to be a disgusting evasive hypocrite?

I never claimed that I could prove such a thing, any more than you could prove the contrary.

[seer]

There’s no evidence that they do. Morals and ethics arose to enable the survival of our communities and they adapt according to the needs of said communities. We see the precursors of such behaviour among other higher primates, which further underscores the natural evolutionary nature of the process.

We discussed this before, we have no actual evidence for why and how ethics came about. It is all based on assumption.

Ah, so they're not universal absolute moral values at all.

Well Tass, you never see me using the term "absolute." And not all of God's law would need to be universal for some of it to be universal. It is not either or.

[seer]

If murder is a sin, and god orders the murder of men, women and children, then gods law is arbitrary.

No Jim, murder is the unjustified taking of life. You would have to make the case that God is not justified in taking back the lives He gave. Then there is the idea that the wicked who are killed in this life are not actually dead, they remain alive but are separated - we call that hell.

[Roy]

Now are you going to prove your claim that there is a law of God, or will you continue to be a disgusting evasive hypocrite?

I never claimed that I could prove such a thing, any more than you could prove the contrary.

A disgusting evasive hypocrite it is then.

You demanded a proof that universal objective moral values don't exist even though I never claimed I could prove that. I provided support for my position.
But when I ask for proof of something you claim, you produce nothing at all. You shirk the responsibility you requested of me.

You have once again proven yourself to be a blatant hypocrite.

[seer]

A disgusting evasive hypocrite it is then.

You demanded a proof that universal objective moral values don't exist even though I never claimed I could prove that. I provided support for my position.
But when I ask for proof of something you claim, you produce nothing at all. You shirk the responsibility you requested of me.

You have once again proven yourself to be a blatant hypocrite.

No, Jabx said that universal, objective moral values exist. You said no they don't - I simply asked you how you knew that, then you went on this childish rant. Then you claimed that you supported that assertion, but you did no such thing, you merely offered more opinion. Your limited, bias opinion.

[Roy]

No, Jabx said that universal, objective moral values exist. You said no they don't - I simply asked you how you knew that, then you went on this childish rant.

And now you are trying to lie your way out. I told you how I knew that. Post #16, which you mostly ignored.

[seer]

And now you are trying to lie your way out. I told you how I knew that. Post #16, which you mostly ignored.

Yes, you offered opinion, and?

Because there's no evidence they exist.

You mean there is no evidence in your limited experience.

Because there's no reason for them to exist. Because there's no need for them to exist.

Whether there is need or not, says nothing about their existence.

Because those who claim they exist use fallacious arguments.

Still waiting for the exact logical fallacy that you are speaking of.

Because those that claim they exist disagree on what they are and where they originate.

Again, that tell us nothing about their actual existence. They could logically exist even if we get it all wrong.

[shunyadragon]

No, Jabx said that universal, objective moral values exist. You said no they don't - I simply asked you how you knew that, then you went on this childish rant. Then you claimed that you supported that assertion, but you did no such thing, you merely offered more opinion. Your limited, bias opinion.

I would not say that 'universal objective do or do not exist.' I would say that there is no objective verifiable nor falsifiable evidence that they do exist.

[Tassman]

We discussed this before, we have no actual evidence for why and how ethics came about. It is all based on assumption.

Nonsense! We have very good evidence for “why and how ethics came about” based upon natural selection and the need for social species such as us to live in functioning communities in order to survive.

Well Tass, you never see me using the term "absolute." And not all of God's law would need to be universal for some of it to be universal. It is not either or.

How do you determine which of God’s laws have universal application and which do not...subjective assumptions?

Again, that tell us nothing about their actual existence. They could logically exist even if we get it all wrong.

If we have no way of knowing for sure what they are then they're worse than useless, they're divisive.