There's two judgements.
When you die you receive a particular judgement immediately. This judgement is kind of automatic.
In the last judgement we'll receive a public judgement in the presence of Jesus Christ.
i'm having a hard time with this.
what does the bible say what happens when you die?
when jesus was on the cross he said to the man that when he dies he will be with jesus in heaven.
There's two judgements.
When you die you receive a particular judgement immediately. This judgement is kind of automatic.
In the last judgement we'll receive a public judgement in the presence of Jesus Christ.
one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.
it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.
christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.
We believe humans are not just material bodies and not spiritual beings neither.
Humans are the very union of a spiritual soul and a material body. Two different natures forming the unique human nature. And the soul is created at the moment of conception and is destined to be mysteriously united to a body.
Humans are not bodies and are not souls. Humans have bodies and souls.
And we believe the ultimate destiny of humans is to have an eternal union of body and soul.
The ultimate free intentions of the soul will define its eternal destiny with the body.
one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.
it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.
christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.
As I understand it, Catholics hold that life is sacred from conception. How do you disprove that objectively? Or do you describe their opposition differently?
Yes, we believe that the soul is directly created and infused by God in the very moment of conception.
It's not about the embryo having a neural system or not or ability to feel pain. It's about the soul already created.
one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.
it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.
christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.
Cofty
It's not minutiae but the very premises you're using.
I cannot accept your conclusions without accepting every premise.
This is basic debating.
Our minds simply have in-built absolute values of morality.
Morality does not come from religion, because you don't need religion to dictate universal moral values.
Religion is the quest of why we possess such absolutes naturally attached in our minds. And how to explain and develop them. Of course religion copes with revelations about these in-built features too.
Think religion as reverse engineering. That's why there's so much religions but Jesus established a very practical test to use about the several religions. He told about their fruits or if it works in the reverse engineering approach.
That's why I previously said about the logical internal consistency in Catholicism. JWism has no consistency for instance.
one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.
it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.
christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.
using simple geometric principles
Simple geometric principles does not exist in nature. You never saw a point, line or a plane.
These concepts are only in our minds. Or are only accessible with our minds. You can't even define them so why they're called "undefined terms".
Your mind simply know these concepts. You never learnt how to access or define them, is an in-built feature in our minds.
one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.
it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.
christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.
Yes, I want a sincere conversation.
So I'm arguing about your first premise: objectiveness is different from absoluteness.
You'd put this premise as base of your OP.
But you failed to show how is possible something be objective without absolute references.
one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.
it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.
christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.
Sorry but there's an absolute (very narrow) range in values of health data.
one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.
it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.
christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.
Despite this we constantly make objective statements about physical well-being.
Based on absolute data as weight, blood pressure, body temperature, etc.
one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.
it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.
christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.
Cofty
I always read your topics.
But your attempt to separate absolute and objective is pointless.
How can something be objective without some absolute as reference?
one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.
it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.
christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.
Your argument is flawed. You're saying that god must be real because evolution created our consciousness, which in turn created the idea of god. But because there is no reason for evolution to create something unreal, god must be real.
No, no, no. I'm buying your argument. God exists only as an idea created by a mind produced by evolutionary algorithm.
The idea of God exists.
And this idea is very significant in human history.
Why evolution would bring so much waste in a particular unreal idea?
The idea of an unicorn brought no signicancy to human history. Why?
What's the evolutionary explanation regarding the differences between two unreal ideas?