Morality and Subjectivity

You had an argument against the existance of God and you find it flawed and you find that you finding it flawed is 'unfortunate'?I would have thought that finding one less reason to support Gods non-existance would prove a delight to you. Its almost like you didn't want him to exist.I enjoyed the piece. You might consider where this point might influence how the logic sits together.If God exists it means that there exists such a thing as absolute morals. But it doesn't follow that we are in possession of them. They can exist and we can still have subjective morals. Not totally divorced from the abolute but still subjective in that we can decide which to accept and whether to spanner on their absolutedness. The fall would suggest this is what happened us. The discussion on gay marriage would prove our morals are subjective. He can exist and it is our subjective morality which decides he is cruel. Whereas he would define what is cruel and what isn't.

The route you are travelling at the moment is a search for intellectual certainty one way or the other. And as far as it goes it may bring one close. But it cannot arrive on its own. It can say that intellectually God can exist but never that he does exist.I don't know how a person can every be sure he doesn't exist. But I know that the only way they can be sure he does is if they meet him themselves. Thereafter there is no possibility of an argument or a philosophy or a scientific discovery altering the intellectual knowledge that he does exist. Not necessarily. God inserted a perfect set of morals in to us all and we choose to distort them and operate according to a distorted model of our own making. The altering of his morals in a sin (we chose to do so). And every action according to our spannered on morals naturally sinful too. That each can spanner on them in their own way leads to subjective morals (self-spannered upon)

I wouldn't gloss over your admission that the statement is a contradiction. A statement which contradicts itself cannot be true. Given that the statement is untrue, it follows that certainty about Gods existance IS a possibility. And not all that difficult either. All it would take is for God to make himself known to a person in a way that made them certain he existed. That is a limitation in the very narrow field of HUMAN endeavor called Science. I can't see why problems we have in an area should be a problem for God.

I see your reverting to your two line sniping again. Pity. You wrote a post of some length yesterday and had something to actually say. I was so flabbergasted I never even thought to respond (seriously, I was flabbergasted!)You seem to be saying (for your pathological brevity forces me to speculate) that it is not possible for God to make himself objectively real to a person. He can make the Sun, Moon and stars but not do this. It seems there's a god-in-my-own-image-and-likeness born with about the same frequency as suckers

That's what I hated about Maths. When I came out of an exam I knew I had failed - whereas with English and History I could hope for the two months it took for the results to be released and only then find out I'd failed.When I was a kid the final exam you took on leaving school was called the Leaving Cert. In order to "pass your leaving" - many employers minimum entry requirement - you had to pass 5 subjects of the 8 or 9 taken. Me and my mate Barry (who happens to be a top drawer crime journalist these days) still hold a certain inverted pride of being in the position whereby if you added our results for the Leaving Cert together you still wouldn't manage to scrap together one pass!I had a brief period in a good college in England where an insight into the power of maths and the beauty of it became apparent. I walked out of those exams knowing I'd scored a 90+. It didn't last long enough to really stick though. Pity

Again? I pointed out that it was a long post. I didn't say it was a good one. Let my new found admiration take root before you start harvesting will ya.

Given your subsequent argument I don't see how you can apply 'especially' here. We might all be characters in some alien kids playstation game in which case you can be no more certain of the computer screen on front of you than I am of God.My oft repeated mantra about knowing God exists for certain has equally oft been qualified by that certainty being limited to equate in quality with the certainty that I exist (as I percieve myself to). I don't necessarily exist of course, I might be a character in a aliens playstation game The way we function is not to consider these as uncertainties at all. No one does consider them, except the relative few who ponder it and who then accept that its pointless to speculate. Anyway, within the bounds available I don't need to progress anymore having arrived at the destination. Your first argument makes plain (as does my response) that a person cannot be certain to a level greater that the ability for a person to be certain. This does not require infinite knowledge. It just requires one to be as certain as a person can. And that is how certain I am. I couldn't be more certain. I don't disparage science but remember that it is only a tool constructed and applied by the human mind. And it is only one of a number of tools available to the mind. In that sense it is narrow. One of many tools.

You keep on supplying the banner headlines then CK. And I'll keep on writing the column inches underneath.

might?might?You don't have to know the creator of the universe in order to dispel any notion that there would be any 'mights' about your life changing drastically were you in fact to come to know him. Changing stratospherically is to put it mildly.Think of the sheer fun if nothing else (for the only way one can know him results thankfully in the 'negative' aspects of him never being made manifest. The day you get to know there is in fact a Hell (beyond all reasonable doubt) is the day you get to find out you are not going there){AbE} assuming the timing of the 'getting to know' falls on the correct side of the fenceEdited by iano, : No reason given.

Very interesting, rivetting, mind boggling, stupendous. Whatever.I had a mate ask me at the weekend "What is the Sun made of?" To be honest I wasn't sure but "thought it was gas". He said "does that mean I can stick my hand through it?" "In a manner of speaking I suppose so" I replied "but get out the teflon gloves"5000 million tonnes of matter 'burnt' per second. And you suppose meeting the person who made that 'might' change your life?Droll Robin. Very droll

Deleted. Insulting Robins intelligenceEdited by iano, : No reason given.

I was arguing something as if you were a fool and wouldn't be adequately be able to argue it yourself. As if I didn't know better.Sorry

Have you actually ever read what Robin has ever written?

Now I know you and me don't get on famously or anything CK, but I think any objective reading of these sentences could only bring to mind what is to be imagined of a particularily inept webdate message

If your getting the notion (given CK springing manically into the arena) that there are folk fighting for your soul..then you would be right