Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Religion, Science, Scepticism, Philosophy and things metaphysical

Jump to new
SirRumpole said:
SirRumpole said: ↑
I am saying that intelligent creation is a possibility,
Click to expand...
If you make a statement like that and someone asks you for a reason, then you have to back it up with a reason. You can't just ask another unrelated question like-
SirRumpole said:
How do you know an infinite universe is a possibility ?
Click to expand...
It makes the discussion ludicrous. If you can't back up your assertion with a valid reason it's considered by those who understand debate as defeated, debunked and not even believed in by you, because you have no ability to provide a valid basis for the assertion and are running away from addressing it by diverting to another question!
 
Last edited:
Value Collector said:
Voting to deny marriage rights to same sex couples is a recent example of a nasty thing a religious Christian might do.

The Bible says not to suffer a witch to live? Hence some Christians kill witches/innocent people accused of being witches.

Secular morality is the morals most of us live by, that would cause a person to not want to kill an accused witch even though they my be some where on the religious spectrum.

If a Christian is willing to support the use of condoms to help fight aids, that’s some secular morality leaking into their thought process, and causing them to ignore some Christian doctrines in favor of doing actual good
Click to expand...

Tell me, where in the bible did Christ forbid the use of birth control?

Where in the bible did Christ promote the persecution of homosexuals?

Where in the bible did Christ demand the killing of witches?

And in light of your answers to the above, how do you justify your continued insistence in the superiority of secular morality, when you haven't even managed to define morality in an objective context.
 
cynic said:
morality in an objective context.
Click to expand...
To assume the 'beliefs' in 'God's' creates an objective context for moral law, is far more stupid and subjective than say, democracy, science or civil law which are tried and tested objective evolving structures that humans have prospered under and managed to cooperate with each other, far better than the madness of 'man imagined' 'Gods' law.
 
Last edited:
notting said:
To assume the 'beliefs' in 'God's' creates an objective context for moral law, is far more stupid and subjective than say, democracy, science or civil law which are tried and tested objective evolving structures that humans have prospered under, far better than the madness of 'man imagined' 'Gods' law.
Click to expand...
Firstly, the assumption, you stated, isn't being made-it has already been logically deduced. Without intent/purpose to the existence of life, none of life's behaviour/s can truly be defined as aberrant.

But since you attest to the presence of stupidity, perhaps you might like to present a logical counterargument, demonstrating the existence and/or genesis of secular morality (presuming such an argument even exists)?
 
notting said:
Your asking me to present a 'counterargument' to the existence of common law, science and democracy?
Click to expand...
No! You misunderstand me. Perhaps it might have been better if I had simply asked for you to present your best argument for the existence and/or genesis of secular morality.
 
cynic said:
No! You misunderstand me. Perhaps it might have been better if I had simply asked for you to present your best argument for the existence and/or genesis of secular morality.
Click to expand...
I just did - democracy, common law and science.
 
notting said:
It makes the discussion ludicrous. If you can't back up your assertion with a valid reason it's considered by those who understand debate as defeated, debunked and not even believed in by you, because you have no ability to provide a valid basis for the assertion and are running away from addressing it by diverting to another question!
Click to expand...

You are talking gibberish. VC asserts that an infinite universe is a possibility with the same lack of knowledge that he ascribes to me by stating intelligent creation is a possibility !

IF WE DON'T KNOW HOW THE UNIVERSE BEGAN, THEN WHAT REASON DO YOU HAVE FOR SAYING IT WAS NOT DESIGNED ?

Show me your proof of that.
 
SirRumpole said:
You can establish that it did NOT begin ?
Click to expand...
You made the assertion that 'the universe began' adding another assertion that it began by your creator god creating it and are making arguments based on those invalidated assertions.
If you have no pervasive reason that validates your assertions you cannot then decide that it began or something began it.
If you're, now, happy to say that you have no valid basis for your random assumption that the universe began or is created by something living in an inherently independent sphere (another untenable notion) then we can address what I may assert.
 
Last edited:
SirRumpole said:
Nobody knows whether the universe is finite or infinite, and what does that have to do with the existence of god anyway ?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...the-universe-finite-or-infinite/#10a937e14967
Click to expand...

That being the case it will remain infinite until proven otherwise.

God?
What are you talking about.
There is no god

God/s are human delusions
For the weak needing something to explain that which they cannot.
Used to evoke fear to maintain control of the masses.

Don’t need to prove anything
Being an atheist it is my own view.
Just as valid as those with other conflicting views.

Amen!
 
cynic said:
You do yourself an injustice when you do this. None of those things are answers to my question.
Click to expand...
They are answers to your questions because science, democracy and common laws are established, tested and implemented paradigms out of which and upon which we can and have based our notions and laws around what is good and bad behavior relative to the consequences on society.
 
notting said:
You made the assertion that 'the universe began' adding another assertion that it began by your creator god creating it and are making arguments based on those invalidated assertions.
If you have no pervasive reason that validates your assertions you cannot then decide that it began or something began it.
If you're, now, happy to say that you have no valid basis for your random assumption that the universe began or is created by something living in an inherently independent sphere (another untenable notion) then we can address what I may assert.
Click to expand...

I suggest you read this, it outlines the current possibilities.

http://www.is-there-a-god.info/clues/universe/
 
SirRumpole said:
I suggest you read this, it outlines the current possibilities.
Click to expand...
Another diversion.

Why would I resort to speculative articles recommended by those proving to be proponents of irrationality.
There is no confusion in my view. I'm not asserting ridiculous baloney.
You just need to stick to the point. When you realise it's invalid then you have to implement the courage and self honesty/respect to drop it.
You don't go on a path of never ending research to justify what was a mad notion to begin with. That will never end nor provide you with insight or deliverance unto certainty and clarity regarding what it is to 'be' - the truth.
Truth starts with 'honesty with thy self' :D
 
Top