ILoveJesus

Members
  • Content count

    21
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Unknown

About ILoveJesus

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Exams
    May 2017
  • Country
    Netherlands

Recent Profile Visitors

1,779 profile views
  1. I didn't say it had to be the Christian God. The argument was if God doesn't exist, objective moral values don't exist. But objective moral values do exist. Therefore, God exists. It would be false to say that it has to be a Christian God, and that's why I haven't said that. Also, I said that the Bible doesn't have to be inerrant for Christianity to be true, and that's why objections to Noah's Ark and other biblical stories are irrelevant. The evidence for the existence objective moral values is our moral experience. Our moral experience tells us that some things really are wrong, e.g. the holocaust really was wrong. It's not just a matter of opinion. Does this: seem like a matter of opinion, or is it actually wrong? You once again implied that since all of humanity hasn't reached a consensus on anything, objective moral values don't exist. However, whether everybody agrees with them or not does not say anything about whether there are moral values that exist independent of what people think. Torturing an innocent person is wrong. Just because some maniacs think it's fine, doesn't change the fact that it's wrong.
  2. Hey, thanks for the compliment. But it's just cause I've lived in America before. Still, I think it's so important to keep these debates friendly and not start hating each other. Our differences in ideas should not have any affect on our perceptions of each other. You just admitted that both choices are really morally wrong ("both choices are morally reprehensible")! That means that you agree that objective moral values exist, so God exists! I don't think the choice is obvious either, and I didn't mean to state it as if I did think it was obvious. I don't know what I would choose. I just wanted to hear from you that both choices are morally wrong. The very reason that it's a tough choice is because both options are immoral. If they weren't then the decision wouldn't even matter. Now even though you admitted that both choices are really morally wrong, which would mean that God exists, I doubt you'll admit that. However, objective moral values don't come from nowhere, and not from evolution either (here's the video explaining that, in case you haven't watched it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FWbxtJcnkI ).
  3. I think you should take a good look at what I posted instead. Cause it seems like you completely misread it. First off, I never said that it had to be the Christian God. Why are you accusing me of doing so? Maybe because I mentioned stories from the Bible. But the reason I mentioned them is because another person asked questions about them. Second, I even said: This makes all of your comlaints about Sodom and Gomorrah and Noah's Ark completely irrelevant. Finally, you're saying that there are no objective moral values because there is nothing that all societies agree on. Dude, objectivivity means that they are true independent of what people think. So it wouldn't matter if some people disagree with it, it's still wrong. I've had to explain that so many times. Anyways, you're saying that there is no objective good and evil, but I'm sure your moral experience tells you otherwise.
  4. Yes you can. You can have some objective moral values, and the rest would then be a matter of subjective opinon. "The Holocaust being wrong isn't a moral". I said that the Holocaust was morally wrong. Doesn't that make sense? First I'd like to hear from you why the situation between killing the large group of people and torturing the wife is a tough one.
  5. Couldn't you say the same thing about the Bible? If this were true, the Categorical Imperative would be just as objective or subjective as the Bible. Why? Because, just like Kant, the Bible is a collection of accounts from humans. Any moral code is always bound by the subjective conditions upon which it is formed. To be truly objective, the Bible must be written by god, a source of moral objectiveness beyond human opinion, because, as you say: Since there is no part of the Bible which is written by god, then its objectivity is put into question. An example of the Bible's subjectiveness Good questions! First off, the Bible is not a moral code, like the Categorical Imperative. It's a collection of historical narratives. Also, I never said that the Bible was objective, and I'm not defending that position either because it's not essential to the Christian faith. So I'm not saying that every statement in the Bible about morality has objective value. I don't see any problems here. There's a misconception here. I'm saying that objective moral values exist. I'm not saying that every action is either good or evil, I'm just saying that there are objective moral values, and that's all that's necessary for God to exist. Furthermore, this does not mean that an action has to be either good or bad regardless of the situation. In fact, it depends on the situation very often, and this does not disprove objective morality. Punching someone can be objectively wrong if the person didn't deserve it, and it can be objectively neutral if it were because you're in a boxing match. This does not in anyway disprove that there are objective moral values. Note that actions can be morally neutral. I'm sure you can find many examples where it depends on the situation, like you did with marriage. When I say that objective moral values exist, that meanst that they are true, regardless of what people think. So if some sociopath thinks that the holocaust was morally good, that doesn't change the matter at all. The reason I believe that things some things are actually wrong is because our conscience clearly tells us these things, not because many agree on it. Also, things aren't wrong for no reason. There is a reason why things are wrong. There might even be several correct reasons. And it's true that some people can come to the same conclusion with the wrong reason. For example, someone could say that the Holocaust was wrong because he believes that Jews should be crucified instead of killed in a gas chamber. He came to the same conclusion but for a wrong reason. Anyways, that was a bit irrelevant. In conclusion, our conscience clearly tells us that some things really are wrong, and that's why you should believe that some things really are wrong, and some things really are good. Not because other people agree on it.
  6. I never said that all morals are objective. The argument went like this: If God doesn't exist, objective moral values don't exist. But objective moral values and duties do exist. Therefore, God exists. Never does it say that all moral values are objective. If there is just one objective moral value, then God exists. First I'll tell you a little about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. God first told Abraham, that he would destroy the cities because the people were so evil. But then Abraham and God agreed that he would not destroy the cities if there were just 10 righteous people there. Later they found out that there were no righteous people living there, that all of them were wicked, so then God destroyed the cities, but he still chose to save Lot's family. Looking back at it, God just wanted to get rid of the evil, and I don't see it as immoral. The same goes for the flood. Everybody was consumed by sin except Noah, and God got rid of it. He spared Noah's family though, and he also provided a way for the rest to escape if they were willing to listen to Noah. Also, he promised he would never do it again. So once again, God did it to get rid of the evil and was willing to save anyone else who trusted Noah. And finally, the crucifixion: Jesus and the Father both wanted to save humanity from their sins, and they both knew that Jesus had to die for that, so they agreed that Jesus would do it. I really don't see how it was immoral. I don't believe these acts were morally unjust, but even if you believe that the Bible describes an immoral God, then it doesn't mean that God is not immoral. It could be that the Bible has errors in it. The doctrine of inerrancy is not essential for Christian faith. Anyways, I hope you realize that some actions really are better than others. For example, that loving a child really is morally better than torturing it, and that that's not just a matter of opinion. It's funny that you're all from Sidney by the way
  7. I have an important update. It is possible to study in Germany with online or self-taught courses depending on which Zeugnisanerkennungsstelle you go to. Some of them require all reports throughout the 2 years, and some of them only require the final grades. If they only require the final grades, then they won't know if it was online or self taught.
  8. So you think that there can be objective moral values without a God? I haven't read about the Categorical Imperative you mentioned, but as long as there is no objective standard of morality (God) then it's all just a human opinion against another human opinion. So if someone like Kant were to come up with a moral code, then it would not have any objective value because it came from a human. Also, objective moral laws require objective moral law givers. They don't come from nothing. And lastly, a lot of people have argued that objective moral values (e.g. torturing and innocent person is wrong) can arise from the evolution of our species). While it's true that evolution can provide subjective moral codes, it can't explain objective moral values. Here's why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FWbxtJcnkI
  9. Dude, you're thinking way too hard about this quote. Richard Dawkins is an atheist. His view is this: "The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” So he says that it looks precisely as if there's no evil no good, nothing but pitiless indifference. This is the truth if there is no God. But if there is a God then there would be objective good and evil because God is the objective standard of good. Do you understand?
  10. Lol what I said is still true. If God doesn't exist, then Richard Dawkins' view, which is in the quote, is true. So I'm not deceiving anyone here.
  11. There are many actions which can be objectively neutral, but that's not a problem for the argument. If there is just one thing that is objectively good or objectively wrong (independent of what some maniacs think, meaning that it doesn't matter that if some people disagree with it) then God exists. Atheists agree on this statement. According to Richard Dawkins, one of the most popular atheists, if there is no God, there is "no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” Now we shouldn't deny what our conscience tells us about the Holocaust (that it really is wrong), and follow the argument to its logical conclusion that God exists.
  12. Hey there. The argument went like this. If God doesn't exist, objective moral values don't exist. However, objective moral values do exist. Therefore God exist. The key word is objective. It's true what you said, that everyone can have their own moral values even if God doesn't exist, but that wasn't the point. If God doesn't exist, there are no objective moral values, meaning that they really are true, independent of what people think. For example, torturing an innocent person is wrong, even if some people think it's okay. So if God doesn't exist, things like the Holocaust weren't really wrong; it would just be a matter of subjective opinon. But obviously our moral experience tells us that the holocaust really was wrong. Thus there is an objective moral value, and thus God exists. Furthermore, you even seem to affirm that objective moral values and duties do exist when mentioned a couple things that seemed wrong. The ironic thing is that if God doesn't exist, you wouldn't be able righteously complain about these things because everything would just be a matter of human opinion.
  13. Hey, of course it matters whether God exists or not! One reason is that if there is no God (and the natural world is all there is), then there is no afterlife, but if there is a God, then there is probably an afterlife. Whether there is or isn't an afterlife surely matters and has implications on how you should live your life. Also, eating pork, eating lobster, and having a round haircut are not sins. They were prohibited by the Old Testament law (the first 5 books of the old testament) which was the law given to the Jews to keep them holy and clean for the preparation of the coming Messiah. The thing is, these laws were fulfilled in Christ when he came. So Christians don't have to follow them anymore. Just want to clear up that misunderstanding because so many people are uninformed and believe this.
  14. Hi Emilia, think about what it means to demand tangible, objectively observable evidence for every claim. Can you proved tangible observable evidence that 1,000 x 1,000 = 1,000,000? I don't think so. As you can see, science by itself cannot answer everything. Anyways, there are three major arguments for the existence of God, of which none have been disproven. Two of them are based on scientific discoveries (yay). Below I have provided links to youtube videos that give an awesome description of each argument. The Moral Argument: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxiAikEk2vU The Kalam Cosmological Argument: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CulBuMCLg0 The Fine-tuning Argument: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EE76nwimuT0 I'd like to see you try disprove any of the arguments. (By the way, the channel which made these videos, drcraigvideos, is from Dr. William Lane Craig, who is possibly the top Christian apologist today. Please check out his debates if you have time. He really owns them ) Furthermore, besides these arguments, are you saying that personal experiences don't say anything about the existence of God. How did you come to that conclusion? If you were to meet God, wouldn't that say something about his existence? Countless people have witnessed miracle healings, and prophecies by the Holy Spirit, and you're rejecting evey single one of those experiences? Also, millions of people have had out of body and near death experiences in which they met a being of light, Jesus. Once again, are you rejecting every single one of those experiences? And finally, there's the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. Let me ask you a question. Would you make up a lie and spread it around if you knew that people would persecute, torture, and kill you for doing so? No because it's illogical right? Well on atheism, this is exactly what Jesus' disciples did (they claimed to see Jesus after the crucifixion, which would mean that he rose from the dead). Even atheist historians agree on this. So did they make up a lie to get themselves killed, or did they believe that it was true? So that should be enough "evidence" to get you started Emilia. Kind regards!
  15. Hello everyone, I was planning on going to Uni in Germany, and in order to do that, IB students have to go to a "Zeugnisanerkennungsstelle" to get their Diploma accepted. My own diploma is not getting accepted because I took an online course (economics SL), and my sister's diploma is not getting accepted because she is taking self-taught German A, as they don't offer German A at our school. This is frustrating, and T just want to make everyone aware that you cannot study in Germany if you take a self-taught course or an online course