Atheism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals.

1. Christianity is a revealed religion.
2. God’s revelation is a self-disclosure. He removes the veil that keeps us
from knowing Him.
3. We do not come to know God through speculation.
4. God revealed Himself in various ways throughout history.
5. General revelation is given to all human beings.
6. Atheism and agnosticism are based on a denial of what people know to
be true. (I know you will challenge this, but oh well)
7. Foolishness is founded on the denial of God.
8. Wisdom is founded on the fear of God.

nahh i was just bored. I figured if i pushed a button or two i might get a response!

why must the Priest be mad?

But this is what the book clearly says. Proverbs go on to say:

I think I see the problem. You have addressed it already....lets use logic: Objective means relative to the object. If one claims that the object of all morality is God, one concludes that there is no further discussion since God never changes, is absolute, etc etc... The believer would argue that as a child of God they have access to and awareness OF the moral absolutes. Telling them that even their Bible is subjective merely frustrates and stiffens their resolve to be absolutely right---as their Creator would logically expect them to be. Right? Put another way---He is the object of our faith and we are all subjects of the King. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Lemme see if I can break this down:

Dawns basic argument is that God exists.(Premise #1) objective morality is defined by God as is subjectivity itself.(Conclusion #1) The problem with Dawns position is that he is trying to use what he believes as objective reality(God) to win the argument against the reality of subjectivity having any validity.

​

Mods basic response...as well as others...is that Dawn cannot prove that God exists even though objective morality as a belief proves it through the Bible.
Dawn needs to provide evidence for his stance.

​

Or put another way...even if I or anyone else can lay out a framework for objective reality(as a belief) we ourselves are inescapably subjective in our position...given that we are not God.

Dawn writes:

​

So when I have an omnipotent, omniscient, morally absolute being saying thou shalt not steal, then that statement is an objectively true statement

Mod writes:

​

Agreed. It's a shame you don't have such a thing or your argument would be won.

In other words, IF God exists, God wins. You are not God. Thus...you can no more claim objectivity than I can.

​

Does anyone see my attempt at making a point?

​

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

---

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
"as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler

Are you suggesting that the Creator of all seen and unseen has chosen to allow humanity to determine morality on their own? Furthermore, are you suggesting that God would rather we learn how to behave rather than simply telling us objectively the definition of behavior?If so, why the need for commandments?I can see Dawns basic argument that human definition, opinion, and a consensus is irrelevant as it is subjective and thus meaningless.You, on the other hand, are laying out a case from the Bible that God expected humanity to be responsible for its own destiny.Am I close?

Would you argue that the charge is objective or subjective?(The charge that everyone has to try and do their best)Is your best the same as my best? Is Faiths best different from both of us? Can Tangle quantify what his best should be?Even if we can behave better than the God of the Bible, what about Jesus? (Some argue that He personifies the God of the Bible better than the OT stories....)Surely modern day morality is not at a higher standard than the son of David personified....

Which I suppose makes sense. The other side wants morality to be something God either dictates or persuades...which even if true turns out to be on us to carry out.In order for morals to be rational, they must be something we actually do.Can anyone think of morals that society intrinsically knows to be true yet routinely ignores or rejects?

You are an ok poster, DJ. Your biggest weakness seems to be a bit of an ego...but many of we Christians rationalize it away by claiming that God gave us wisdom and that we are proud "in" Him. . Anyway im glad you got unsuspended and hope that you can curtail the ongoing desire to teach us anything.....it will come naturally with time...it is the posters character that either persuades or repels us.

Aussie, I don't see any missing messages...what is it that you are seeing?
Perhaps if you clicked on the link that I provided to Pork&Cheese you would have pulled up ringos posts only...I was trying to highlight the exchange between ringo and dawn Bertot...And while I'm here, I suppose I can make a post. *ponders a moment*... I happen to believe that Morality is realistically subjective and that anyone need not be able to explain morality as long as they understand it intrinsically...which I believe that all humans do.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.