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: ↑
I am saying that intelligent creation is a possibility,
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!How do you know an infinite universe is a possibility ?
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
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.morality in an objective context.
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.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.
perhaps you might like to present a logical counterargument, demonstrating the existence and/or genesis of secular morality (presuming such an argument even exists)?
Because I'm talking to you.
The chances of that happening is in the Trillions to 1
I see no evidence of a finite universe---nor does anyone else.
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.Your asking me to present a 'counterargument' to the existence of common law, science and democracy?
I just did - democracy, common law and science.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.
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!
You are yet to establish that the universe began. (Just for starters)IF WE DON'T KNOW HOW THE UNIVERSE BEGAN, THEN WHAT REASON DO YOU HAVE FOR SAYING IT WAS NOT DESIGNED ?
You are yet to establish that the universe began. (Just for starters)
You do yourself an injustice when you do this. None of those things are answers to my question.I just did - democracy, common law and science.
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.You can establish that it did NOT begin ?
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
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.You do yourself an injustice when you do this. None of those things are answers to my question.
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.
God?
What are you talking about.
There is no god
Another diversion.I suggest you read this, it outlines the current possibilities.
You don't need to resort to speculative articles
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?