Jim: Every member of the discussion, with the inexplicable exception of
Pim, has shown you otherwise.
Has asserted otherwise. But failure to show the existance of a god and the
existance of an objective, eternal, universal morality other than through
assertion is not proof.
Jim: From the start it has been explained to you that your system of
morality
cannot condemn other people's behavior. Now, out of your own fingertips,
you
Well, that settles the case for both sides, neither side can condemn other
people' behavior. But then again morality is not based on objective
standards but on interpretation of standards by the people involved. That
is why moral standards can vary across groups, nations etc. One can always
condemn people for violating what you believe are moral standards, of
course the condemnation carries little weight. In a larger perspective,
morality standards can lead to laws prohibiting certain behavior based on
a majority agreement on what such standards are and how they should be
enforced.
Are there examples of eternal, universal, objective morality ? I don't
believe so. Some on this group have admitted that they try to do their
best to follow what they interpret to be the bible's teachings. Of course
the bible does not make it easier by confusing the issue of morality.
Furthermore there is no evidence that the bible promotes an objective
morality or that this morality is eternal and universal.
have admitted as much. But holding the presupposition of an objective
moral
order allows for universal condemnation, just as it allows for the
opposite,
universal moral obligation. Consistent. Case closed on issue #1.
Jim: What other "impossible standard" might you be referring to? a
reasonableness standard? I.e., the reasonableness of the Christian belief
system? That, too, has been ably presented, met only with weak conjectures
(Jesus the eccentric! They apostles were the "dirty dozen,"
co-conspirators with a death wish!) not based in reality.
But other religions could claim a 'reasonableness' standard and then we
are confronted with conflicting universal moral standards. Not to speak of
the lack of objectivity.
Jim: If so, you have not made a positive case. Now your time has come.
What
evidence do you have to give us to support the proposition "God does not
exist"? Remember, now, it's not a response to say "I don't think there is
any
evidence FOR his existence."
Fine, what evidence do you have that god exists ? What evidence do you
have to disprove that our universe was not created as is last thursday ?
The disbelieve in a deity, in absence of evidence is quite reasonable. Of
course since the existance of a deity cannot be proven or disproven, it is
as unsupportable by science to claim that there is a god. So in the end it
is an issue of personal belief.
Regards
Pim