I can prove God's existence but I understand that I cannot put evidence into God's existence without adequately proving that in the first place.
I can prove Gods existence to my own satisfaction.
prove-vb proved; proved or proven \pru-ven\; proving 1 : to test by experiment or by a standard 2 : to establish the truth of by argument or evidence 3 : to show to be correct, valid, or genuine 4 : to turn out esp. after trial or test provable \pru-ve-bel\ adj
My proof is only within my mind and heart. To attempt a logical construct of my proof for others is not possible unless they know me personally. If they get to know and trust me personally...way beyond the level of relationship that we can have in a classroom or a forum...then I believe that God could be proven (by working through me) You can prove God to Messenjah because you know him so well. You would not be the arbitrator over whether Messenjah accepted the proof or not, however. It would be up to Messenjah to accept or reject the proof as you presented it to him. You could not prove God to anyone in this forum through the use of words, concepts, scriptures, or logic in any way. We do not have enough of a connection with you for God to use you to convey the proof.
Some would even challenge my assertion that God exists ...but lets get back to your topic.
Evidence for a moral absolute is in the word that describes our human ability to discern right from wrong. Conscience.
Yes, you have found the source within yourself that proves God to you. (and convicts you of specific absolutes) yet you cannot explain this proof to others through verbal effort. You could only prove it through a direct contact with our individual consciences, which is not easily done on the internet.
you know the phrase "shoot for the stars"? that kind of thing. I'm not content with getting just a Ph.D. But it's deeper than that. I can't really formulate it into words and do it justice as of now.
I admire your efforts. But why be content with just getting to the stars? Why not get to the very boundaries of the known universe? Why not find a communion between your inner soul and the outer limits of reality?
First, we may believe there is a God but we do not know that.
Allow me to ask you some questions.
Did you know that your parents loved you, or did you simply believe it?
If you met me on the street and we talked, you would have to say that you knew that you met me and not simply that you believed you had met me. My impression would be proof of the meeting. As it is now, you can still honestly say that you believe that you know me..but yet we have not formally met.
I can't rightly say for sure. I don't know you well enough to ascertain your personality, sense of humor, hopes, dreams, and goals.
Getting back on topic, however, I believe that everyone has a common inner unction of morality and ethics. There may be some abstractions, but everyone wants to protect their children, for example. Humans surely have some common characteristics.
Ah the old shell game again. Why do you folk just regurgitate the Chick Tract arguments without thinking them through?
Who specifically is "you folk"? Do you see no individuality in the context of what I say versus what you have read from others? Chick Tracts are not a primary source of reference for me.
Can I get independent confirmation of how my parents felt about me?
Yes. You could ask people who knew your Parents. The question focuses on the interaction between you and your parents, however...and I doubt that observers would have as good of a grasp as you yourself would.
Can I get independent confirmation of your existence?
Most certainly...you could ask those who had met me to confirm the proof of my existence. Unless, of course, you were talking to a metaphysical philosopher who could logically prove that I was an illusion! :rolleyes:
Can I even get someone who doesn't believe that you exist (for example the robot crawlers from Google that index the web) to verify the same evidence I have that you exist?
It has been my experience that the Robot crawlers don't have access to every single word that I have said on the Forum...although I could be wrong. Additionally, you have evidence of my existence through the Java Chat and also there is this matter known as context! :)
Can I get independent confirmation of God's existence?
You may be right in that I shut my brain down when it comes to Faith. I can see where absolute standards of God are what I believe that exist rather than that I know that I know for sure.
Why do you want to insist on claiming you "Know" something that you only believe?
Because my relationship with God is quite personal. This I know. Or I believe. I believe that I experienced a profound change when I got saved. I then think (or believe) but do not know that I can recognize God-morality better than I could before. I could be delusional, however! :)
Standards of definitions by definition (Morally speaking)
the•ol•o•gy n, pl -gies 1 : the study of religious faith, practice, and experience; esp : the study of God and of God's relation to the world 2 : a theory or system of theology — the•o•lo•gian \'thÈ-€-"lÖ-j€n\ n — the•o•log•i•cal \-"lä-ji-k€l\ adj
phi•los•o•phyn, pl -phies 1 : sciences and liberal arts exclusive of medicine, law, and theology 2 : a critical study of fundamental beliefs and the grounds for them 3 : a system of philosophical concepts 4 : a basic theory concerning a particular subject or sphere of activity 5 : the sum of the ideas and convictions of an individual or group 6 : calmness of temper and judgment — phil•o•soph•ic \'fi-l€-"sä-fik\ or phil•o•soph•i•cal \-fi-k€l\ adj — phil•o•soph•i•cal•ly \-k(€-)lÈ\ adv
I think it is important to point out that absolutes are rarely found in philosophy, which tries to find the grounds of belief and is exclusive of theology. Theology properly presupposes God as the uncaused first cause. Philosophy never assumes anything but, rather, attempts to define and clarify the origin of human beliefs on an intellectual level.
What does perfection have to do with absolute? Try to stick with one subject. What makes you think Absolute Morality would be perfection?
I would think that absolute morality would be what Jesus had. You and I disagree on his sinless nature...you thinking he was 100% human and therefore subject to fallible whims.
I think the dude never even looked at a woman with lust...stopping just short of that fine line between respect and appreciation versus longing and desire.
Of course some absolutes exit. But "Absolute Truth" or "Absolute Morality"? I haven't a clue what they might be.
Frankly, they sound like totally useless constructs. Pointless and inane.
so then, Jesus, being totally human, was in fact not without sin? Even if the standard is unobtainable to our fallible selves, why can't the standard have been personified in Christ? This sounds shockingly similar to The Last Temptation Of Christ by Martin Scorsese. While Wiki claims that Jesus was portrayed as a man full of doubts, insecurities, and lusts,(yet still sinless) I would ask at what point does a thought become a sin? This would answer the dividing line between absolute and relative definitions of what sin is in the first place.
I am certainly not perfect, and have exhibited a relative morality through much of my life, but I can still look to Christ as an absolute standard.
Were Christ imperfect, I would then agree that absolute standards cannot exist within humanity.