Why think objective morality is outside objective morality?
I didn't say moral judgments, but actual objective morals could not exist without a Creator.What exists? - people agreeing about judgements or desires? Development of agreed upon social mores is explainable through evolution as more social animals emerge if that's what you mean , so are desires - such as wanting to stay alive - I'm not sure I understand what your saying - please clarify? Regardless - I don't think moral judgements necessitate a God.
Since you didn't specify any possible mistakes at this point, I was just ruling out group hallucinations for you which you agree.I never suggested a "group hallucination" this is a misreading and a misrepresentation of what i have said.
Magic are mere tricks. The supernatural requires assistance from outside of the natural realm.Yes as the word magic means the same thing as supernatural. Supernatural beleifs/concepts including Resurrection, miracles, God.
Why would I? I have the evidence on my side and do not go beyond what the evidence supplies.But you don't admit that your delusional.
God uses the every day to prove His existence which you would expect since what other forum do you have to work with? Address the fact they truly believed they had seen Jesus alive from the dead and went to their deaths for it. You seem unable to account for it with your naturalistic attempts.Maybe some, an account of two people meeting is rather innocuous, proof of the supernatural is not.
Preponderance of evidence is what we are working with, not mere assumptions, which shows us, therefore, nature requires a cause, that which is uncreated. You have been unable to overturn the preponderance of cause and effects in nature.Still my argument against this remains unanswered - your argument only works if you assume nature needs a cause - outside of nature - i.e. not physical - i.e. supernatural. That is in your proof of the supernatural - you assumed it's existence - your conclusion.
Since the physical can't be the ultimate cause it must be non-physical even outside time itself.In what meaningful way can you say something not physical exists - to me "not physical" is the same as saying " not existing".
Yes we know many constants and quantities in the universe. These constants if off just a minuscule amount, the universe could not exist. Such fine-tuning requires an intelligent designer.Do you know "the laws of the universe"?
It is an unreasonable demand, since it is a proclamation you will accept nothing as evidence for God's existence and it relies on the assumption it is possible to know everything when it is impossible for you to know all things. This is why Hell is created, because you provide no means for God to enter your heart.Why is it absurd? by "be God" we mean of course being omniscient of the physical worlds workings - of science and physics.
All you need to know is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence of trillions of cause and effects. We have that now!In order to prove that no physical cause exists for something - i.e. claim a miracle/magic - You would need to know all physical causes that are possible in order to dismiss them.
Therefore, nature always requires a cause and can't come from nothing (Step 2).I think it is more absurd to claim that since all of our current knowledge points to the fact that existing physical entities and even life has "trillions" of physical causes .....
Since the physical can't be the cause because it requires a cause and the universe can't always have been existing. The only available possibility is the uncreated must be the cause.That there must be some non-physical yet somehow mysteriously existing causes. Why? How?
The preponderance of evidence tells us nature needs a cause and there can't be an infinite regress because there would be heat death and we would not still be sinning to the extent we still do. So the uncreated exists. And the reason you reject Jesus being God even though His resurrection is proven is because your are disobedient and have an independency towards God even hostility. If you want to remain that way which will be decided in this life, then you will be resurrected for Hell to be given your hearts desire to be eternally separated from God.Why? because somethings just can't be physically caused
Why? because you say everything needs a cause?
Why? because you say I'm "stupid", illogical, it's absurd, I'm going to some place called "hell" if I think that there must obviously be something which does not require a cause if we assume there is a beginning - since otherwise that would result in an infinite regress - which suggests an eternity.
That's correct.So you conclude there must be a non-physical cause - i.e. a cause that does not physically exist. And you call it God.....the chief property being - that it's not caused
Because to look for a cause to that which is uncaused is self-contradictory. The only problem here is one who contradicts himself.Why? - Because you said - and I should just leave it at that. The end
This is meant to be your perfect argument....
How can you not see the problem with this, or maybe you do.
God said in His word, this is the number one proof of His existence and that nothing is more damning to you. Whether you find it convincing or not, what matters is you can't disprove it. If you could prove something happens all by itself you could disprove the uncreated. Or if you could prove an infinite regress you could also disprove the uncreated. But you could do neither.It's not that nothing will convince me it's that this argument does not convince me. Do you think it's possible anything I say could convince you, or are you "close minded"
Your alternative was shown implausible. You have no reason to think the testimony is unreliable and every reason to think it is reliable. There can be no better proof than eyewitness testimony. It seems to me you rule out any allowance for any kind of evidence which shows your mind is closed. Your position is unfalsifiable so therefore, your stance must be wrong.testimony is not physical data - unless you are examining the method of transmission - but you are speaking about the meaning and claim of the testimony. I don't need to present "naturalistic explanations" beyond saying testimony is unreliable and does not constitute prood . I even went so far as to offer you a plausible alternative of what may have happened - which you reject - illogically with this.
Christianity would not exist without the eyewitness accounts for the resurrection since that is what Christianity is founded on. You can't separate them. The documentation supports they died for their eyewitness claims. What documentation do you have to show otherwise?Something I never claimed to be true - I claimed that as a possible alternative Paul died for something else - The promotion of Christianity.
You don't seem to be able to cite any historical instances of people willingly going to their deaths as martyrs, not recanting what they knew was a lie. Humans don't do that. Humans are self-preserving.They do, if maintaining the lie results in something worth dying for. You cannot prove it was otherwise, or that this alternative is not plausible.
All known naturalistic explanations or mistakes fail to account for the data surrounding the resurrection, so this is the proof Jesus was resurrected. There is no doubt about this.This is my rational "viable explanation" - resurrection is an unproven story. Unless you can come up with proof that a mistake, or deception is not a possible alternative you must admit that there is reasonable doubt.
I think the reason there are no skeptical scholars who claim Paul didn't exist because his fingerprint is in so many places in having set up so many churches and had contact with so many people through the Scriptures.Assumptions - Paul existed - I accept, I cannot prove it conclusively and absolutely since I am historically remote, but I accept.
1.Paul was killed for his beliefs
2.Paul believed in resurection
3. Therefore Paul was killed for believing in resurrection
1. I'm not debating it
2. You can't prove it
3. see two
Church fathers state Paul died in 65 AD in the Neronian persecutions. Luke talks about Paul. Paul testifies how he came to see and believe in Christ and the Apostles whom he met. His talks about the resurrection so much, he clearly believes in it. It's as proven as anything in antiquity. Nobody in their right mind based on all the evidence would challenge this fact.
I think it would help you if you read your Bible, because you wouldn't be having issues with this stuff when you see what is so apparently clear.
He died for this claim. People don't die for something they know is a lie. That goes against our very human nature to survive.But you might say, Paul said he believed in resurrection - well people say a lot of things - If you choose to trust his words that's fine, but trust of testimony is not equivalent to proof.
Two senses of magic can be used. One is just simple human tricks. The other is puff the magic dragon the universe popped into existence all by itself. That wouldn't be supernatural because it has no supernatural agent.If your "uncreated Creator" is not physical, that is supernatural i.e. magic isn't anything created from/out of/by magic = magic?
If you are holding out for an eternity of the past of physical causes then you are claiming the universe always existed, but that's impossible since we would have experienced heat death and mankind would not still be sinning to the extent it still does due to the exponential progression of conscience (Step 1). Know this fact, patiently waiting for a lie is false humility and ultimately, delusional. Again, God has a place for such people.Again the fact that we are ignorant of a physical explanation, does not necessitate a supernatural one - just patience, humility and scientific investigation.
It does give me a certain comfort knowing you will spend an eternity in Hell, just as it would for a woman who was raped knows her attacker is going to spend the rest of his life in prison. Hell is proven, because obviously God can't let you be with those who love Him. Since you have to go some place, this proves Hell's existence. You're equating human physical torture to the kind of torture you will spend in eternity. I think that is an inaccurate comparison and naive. One is in the physical realm, the other is in the spiritual realm. One has fire that goes out. The other has fire that never stops burning. It's the fire of judgment of your choice to be eternally separated from your Creator. Nothing could be more asinine! Since you will reject Jesus Christ for eternity, in the same way I would not want to let that rapist out of jail, because he won't change his ways. God is perfectly justified in sending you to Hell and never let you out. You're a bad guy.You can stop saying I'm going to Hell - the fact that you think it exists , based on your desire for it to exist alone is highly offensive, as is your seeming revelry in the idea of people, especially me being tortured at length just becuase I disagree with you. I wish no such torture on you - only thatbyou will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.
And that you will Go, and do thou likewise.
Any position that is pompous is false. And to claim you have to be God is mindless since obviously you didn't cause your own existence.Pompous and true...
Bookmarks