Posts by UnDisfellowshipped

151

God, Morals, and Atheists

by UnDisfellowshipped in

my version of the "moral argument for god": .

(i have derived the following arguments after studying c.s.

lewis', norman geisler's, and victor reppert's arguments, and i want to give credit where credit is due).

UnDisfellowshipped

doofdaddy said:

"Wouldn't the beginnings of a moral code start when humans became aware that they were conscious individual beings? This awareness would be then be applied to offspring (to give nourishment and protection etc). As family units came together for protection and ease of finding food, wouldn't social codes be the first thing sorted out? Being aware of our individual consciousness brings personal responsibility in our thoughts and actions with one another in the social realm."

If Naturalistic/Materialistic evolution is true, and IF blind chance and mindless physical laws can account for humans becoming aware that they were conscious individual beings, and IF blind chance and mindless physical laws can account for humans acquiring a sense of responsibility, then, yes, tentatively, I will say that that theory does seem plausible. (only IF it is plausible that the blind, mindless physical laws, chance, and time brought about the human consciousness and awareness).

The case for Theism or Atheism is a cumulative case, not a case built only on one argument.

151

God, Morals, and Atheists

by UnDisfellowshipped in

my version of the "moral argument for god": .

(i have derived the following arguments after studying c.s.

lewis', norman geisler's, and victor reppert's arguments, and i want to give credit where credit is due).

UnDisfellowshipped

I didn't say Atheism leads to bad actions, and I didn't say that only those who believe in the Bible God (or any god) have a moral code.

I have been saying all along that all people are born with this Objective Moral Standard. Atheists have it too. There are moral Atheists, just like there are moral Muslims, moral Jews, moral Christians, moral JW's, etc., etc.

It's just that Atheists, based on their own beliefs, have absolutely no objective basis at all for their moral beliefs.

Theists know that they have an objective basis for their morality.

That being said, I do believe it is more likely that someone who believes that there is no ultimate right and wrong would come to the conclusion that there is nothing wrong with hurting other people, than someone who believes there is an Objective Moral Law given by a Moral Law-Giver.

151

God, Morals, and Atheists

by UnDisfellowshipped in

my version of the "moral argument for god": .

(i have derived the following arguments after studying c.s.

lewis', norman geisler's, and victor reppert's arguments, and i want to give credit where credit is due).

UnDisfellowshipped

BTS, OMG! ROTFLMAO! Why didn't I think of that?

151

God, Morals, and Atheists

by UnDisfellowshipped in

my version of the "moral argument for god": .

(i have derived the following arguments after studying c.s.

lewis', norman geisler's, and victor reppert's arguments, and i want to give credit where credit is due).

UnDisfellowshipped

Satanus,

Atheism leads to the belief that all morals are subjective and relative, which you yourself admitted earlier in this thread. So, yes, I did show where Atheism leads.

Atheists can continue to use the "Argument from Evil" all they want, they just can't use it successfully against the points I raised in my first post.

125

The Case for God

by UnDisfellowshipped in

the case for god:.

the "big bang" argument for god:.

the argument for god from evil:.

UnDisfellowshipped

Watson said:

"They are not ignorant at all. "God" just fills a need for them. Boundries, etc."

Just like your unbelief fills a need for you. lol :-)

151

God, Morals, and Atheists

by UnDisfellowshipped in

my version of the "moral argument for god": .

(i have derived the following arguments after studying c.s.

lewis', norman geisler's, and victor reppert's arguments, and i want to give credit where credit is due).

UnDisfellowshipped

And, at the very least, even if this doesn't convince everyone, it has shown clearly where Atheism leads if taken to its logical conclusions, and I have also shown that you cannot successfully use the "Argument from Evil" against Christians.

When this argument is combined with the Kalam Cosmological Argument and the Argument from Reason, I believe that a reasonable person will see that it is just as likely (if not more likely) that our Morality originates with a Creator than mindless physical laws and blind chance.

Just wait till I post a thread about "The Argument from Reason"!

151

God, Morals, and Atheists

by UnDisfellowshipped in

my version of the "moral argument for god": .

(i have derived the following arguments after studying c.s.

lewis', norman geisler's, and victor reppert's arguments, and i want to give credit where credit is due).

UnDisfellowshipped

Even if apes and chimps do have a Moral Law built in (or hardwired) to them, then my argument still stands.

I am not arguing against evolution, and I'm not arguing that morality is a uniquely human attribute.

I am arguing that:

1:) All prescriptions are given by a prescriber.

2:) Moral Prescriptions exist within us (and possibly within animals as well)

3:) Therefore, there must be a Moral Prescriber.

151

God, Morals, and Atheists

by UnDisfellowshipped in

my version of the "moral argument for god": .

(i have derived the following arguments after studying c.s.

lewis', norman geisler's, and victor reppert's arguments, and i want to give credit where credit is due).

UnDisfellowshipped

Parakeet,

I'm sorry. I didn't word my post the way I should have. And I commend you for putting your family first.

I should have said, your sinful desires (just like every single one of us have). God views all people as slaves to their sinful natures unless they come to Jesus for salvation and deliverance from sin. That's what the Bible says. God is not going to judge you for putting your family first, but for the sinful nature you have (just like all of us).

151

God, Morals, and Atheists

by UnDisfellowshipped in

my version of the "moral argument for god": .

(i have derived the following arguments after studying c.s.

lewis', norman geisler's, and victor reppert's arguments, and i want to give credit where credit is due).

UnDisfellowshipped

Satanus said:

"Evolution allows for variants that do not. However, they tend not to survive as well as those better emotionally balanced."

I am very curious, how can scientists possibly know whether or not humans in the past (thousands upon thousands of years of evolution) had empathy? How do we know which ones had empathy and which ones didn't? How do we know that it was the ones who had empathy that survived better?

151

God, Morals, and Atheists

by UnDisfellowshipped in

my version of the "moral argument for god": .

(i have derived the following arguments after studying c.s.

lewis', norman geisler's, and victor reppert's arguments, and i want to give credit where credit is due).

UnDisfellowshipped

Satanus said:

"If the set of laws was hard wired, laws would all be basically the same, in all countries. The fact that laws vary from country to country shows that your premise is wrong, and the alternate that you state is the reality. See, for instance the taliban method of ruling."

First, there are certain laws that are almost universal in all societies (murder -- killing someone without justification; taking another man's wife; stealing, etc.) Even the Taliban probably hold to these beliefs, they have a horribly misguided sense of what "justification" for killing is though.

But, the Objective Moral Law does not DESCRIBE how people WILL act, it PRESCRIBES how people SHOULD act.