R
Resigned
Guest
Thank you.Resigned + Juan
@ Resigned
Welcome to the forums![]()
My contention is that there can be no objective assessments of right and wrong, only subjective ones. As I exampled in post #12: “Egyptian royalty married brother to sister; i.e., engaged in incest by our standards, and functioned successfully for thousands of years. In today's culture, such liaisons are forbidden. Which is morally correct?”.This is a circular argument. In order for you to declare someone
"corrupt", you first have to subscribe to morality, which is
based in an objective truths like "right" and "wrong". If there is
no God, then such objective concepts can not exist.
(Because without God, everything becomes relative)
You state that ”If there is no God, then such objective concepts can not exist.”
My contention is that there can be no objective assessments of right and wrong, only subjective ones. As I exampled in post #12: “Egyptian royalty married brother to sister; i.e., engaged in incest by our standards, and functioned successfully for thousands of years. In today's culture, such liaisons are forbidden. Which is morally correct?”.
You state that ”If there is no God, then such objective concepts can not exist.”
My contention is that there is nothing “objective” about the god model.
When people say they believe in an entity that cannot be seen, cannot be felt, exists outside of the natural realm in an asserted supernatural realm, that has attributes we need to worship but cannot understand or even describe, who lives in eternity in both directions, who can create existence from nothing and is uncreated himself and uses methods and means we can never know or hope to understand, that stands outside proof which is exactly why it's for certain he exists-- I would say that qualifies as being completely, utterly, positively… subjective.
Firstly, I have no objective reason to believe that god said anything in the Koran. You’re claiming that god “said” something in the Koran is hearsay. So we are only left with a book, written by men, that we know has been edited and revised that claims a supernatural phenomenon for all of existence. Secondly I have to acknowledge that “Positive, negative, good, and bad can be creations of man”, no doubt about that. However, god being the creator of all ultimately makes him responsible for all. Things are the way they are because God wants them precisely this way. And this includes a nasty and capricious nature, or shall we call it “mercy”, which will kill people via floods and tornadoes and fires and earthquakes etc., none of which are essential to a world created by a God. He could have just as easily made it otherwise, he just didn't.You also asked the question, 'why would God create man?'
In the Quran God says that He created mankind to have mercy
on us. If man's ultimate destiny is eternal life in heaven,
why would anyone complain (with this purpose)?
And so the next argument is, "Well, this is the way existence is!" Except that argument has no reply against: "Yes, but why does god create it "the way it is" when he just as easily could create it differently?"
There is really no such a things as a "natural consequence" because the root of all is the supernatural law-defining abilities of the god that cobbled it together. God doesn't cause an earthquake? Yes, he establishes the laws of plate tectonics which describe the physical characteristics of portions of the earth’s crust which shifts and adjusts, and those elements together create shifting of landmasses we call earthquakes.
God doesn't cause a tornado? Yes, he establishes the laws of convection and rotation of planets, and those two elements together create swirling whirlwinds we call twisters. As the Author of All, he could have created a completely different existence-- but didn't.
What we are left with is this: Evil is of God -- no way around that -- hence, God is all good and all evil at the same time and is completely self-contradictory.
Hey – thank god for the cancer cell - god’s mercy.