As I have shown in the book "Ultimate Proof of Creation" only Christian theism can account for the preconditions of intelligibility. For example, no polytheistic religion can account for objective morality because which god's decrees should we follow? The gods of other faith systems cannot account for uniformity in nature for a number of reasons. For example, it is the biblical God who transcends time (2 Peter 3:8), has all power (Genesis 17:1, Genesis 18:14), who knows all things including the future (Isaiah 46:9-10), has revealed Himself (Romans 1:18-20), and has promised to uphold the future like the past (Genesis 8:22). All these things are necessary in order to have justification for uniformity in nature, and no other god fulfills all these
48 comments
And no other god was like that?
With polytheism, the gods COULD form a coalition to decide which decrees should be followed.
I have disproved omnipotence before as follows:
If Gobs can find something he can't do by any means, he can't do that thing.
Otherwise Gobs can't find something he's unable to do. Either way he's omniscient.
And your whole argument goes tumbling down...
For example, no polytheistic religion can account for objective morality because which god's decrees should we follow?
I see you know just as much about polytheistic religions as you do evolution.
They usually have a hierarchy of gods or each god has a specific sphere of influence. Most of them also have gods that are more human-like in their motivations a hell of a lot more relateable than the Christian omnipotent sky daddy. I don't believe in any of them, but at least polytheistic mythology is more interesting to read about.
Jason makes psychiatric illness sound like such a worthwhile thing with which to be afflicted. Never has gullibility been presented in such an alluring way. Never has ignorance seemed so pretty. How sublime, how comforting, how pleasantly soporific is the belief. The wild strains of the Desperanto sound like the airs of heaven being passed through a filter of spun gold.
Or:-
It sounds like the gibberish of a renowned twit.
being able to account for objective morality without being able to conclusively and objectively prove its existence does noone any good.
once again, here's the challenge: point to the one code of morality you want to call "objective", then explain what precisely sets it apart from all the other codes of morality such as to make it worth the title.
That's what you should get when your God's the Johnny come lately edition, edited and revised to carry all the most awesome aspects of the Gods he was copied from.
At least, that's what you SHOULD get, BUT yours and William Laing Craigs theory is completely wrong, the development on social order and education is a tracable process that leaves the church-state in mostly the detracter role.
And besides, the verses you site, the attributes you claim to be the cause of mans intellect are all water perfectly fitting the puddle type arguments. Accumulated intelligence and refined social contructs (MORALS) are a matter of time and successive re-evaluating. Evolved culture.
"For example, no polytheistic religion can account for objective morality because which god's decrees should we follow?"
Okay we can play this...
Should we follow the OT god's "an eye for an eye" directions? Or Jesus's "turn the other cheek" directive?
Should we allow divorce as was given to Moses in the OT? Or Jesus's decree that divorce may not be permitted?
Oh, that was Moses who gave that law and not God? Then how do you know that *any* of the Mosaic laws were given by God?
Well, let's see: the ancient Greeks and Romans seemed to form most of the basis of modern ethics and philosophy while worshipping what Jason would regard as pagan gods. The Iroquois Confederacy provided the template for our Constitution and our union, all while worshipping none-Christian gods. Most the great scientific discoveries of the last century were arrived at by people who were agnostic or atheist.
So basically, Jason is full of horse shit.
For example, no polytheistic religion can account for objective morality because which god's decrees should we follow?
For their size, the Mahabharata and Ramayana are no more self-contradictory than is the Bible.
The gods of other faith systems
All your quotes but one are from the scriptures of another religion that is revealed, thus leaving your remaining quote redundant. So, you've just contradicted yourself: Judaism has a god with all those qualities. If you knew the Koran, you'd see the Islamic god has those qualities too. Neither Judaism nor Islam are Christian theism.
"Hail to thee, great God, Lord of the Two Truths. I have come unto thee, my Lord, that thou mayest bring me to see thy beauty. I know thee, I know thy name, I know the names of the 42 Gods who are with thee in this broad hall of the Two Truths . . . Behold, I am come unto thee. I have brought thee truth; I have done away with sin for thee. I have not sinned against anyone. I have not mistreated people. I have not done evil instead of righteousness . . .
Where's your Ten Commandments now, Bible boy?
"Objective" morality, like the soul and the supernatural, is just one of those things people simply up and decided must exist despite there not being any evidence for it. Then people fight (and kill) over which holy book best accounts for these unfounded assumptions. Meanwhile, they completely ignore and marginalize the people who think "Hey, maybe we should see if those assumptions are, you know, actually true."
Objective morality determined by a being that can changed his mind is not objective. Jason knows his God changes his mind, knows that he bans things like murder and then orders murder. He also has said that if god commanded it murder is just and moral. Thing is morality is not objective when the rule giver can change the rules.
"preconditions of intelligibility", as a phrase, makes perfect sense; it's what you need for sense-making to be possible. including a religion in that set is what doesn't.
(let's see, what all is in that set... a mind of some sort, because unconscious entities do not parse their environment in a way we'd apply the word "intelligence" to in this sense. some form of perception, for that mind to examine the thing-to-be-made-sense-of. presumably a flow of time, since we're implicitly speaking in terms of a process here. some thing external to the mind, for its sense(s) to perceive. that's quite a list already, and i'm sure i've missed much. "gawd almighty" isn't among the necessary things i've missed, though, i'm fairly sure of that much.
i'm not even sure you need the thing-perceived to be internally consistent or sensible, provided the perceiving-mind is. such a mind could perceive random white noise, conclude "there's no sense to be made in this", and thus have made perfect sense of its perceived environment. but enough logical consistency for a minimal mind to function reliably is probably needed.)
Uhhhh if you've ever prayed "in Jesus name" or invoked the Holy Spirit, congratulations: you're polytheistic. You can say all you want that they're three faces of the same god, but if Jesus is god, why did he call out to his "father" on the cross?
Christians are polytheistic, thus your argument actually serves to "prove" that Islam is correct.
"t is the biblical God who transcends time (2 Peter 3:8), has all power (Genesis 17:1, Genesis 18:14), who knows all things including the future (Isaiah 46:9-10), has revealed Himself (Romans 1:18-20), and has promised to uphold the future like the past (Genesis 8:22). All these things are necessary in order to have justification for uniformity in nature, and no other god fulfills all these
The ancient Babylonian Code of Hammurabi. Kwannon, the ancient Japanese Shinto Goddess of Mercy. Also, Amaterasu.
...let me know when I've sufficiently annihilated your argument, o Jasey-boy.
by the way Jason has reopened his blog, but now moderates comments, so gimel,annon-e moose Phill-F if you guy still wanna post go ahead
has revealed Himself (Romans 1:18-20)
My cousin Willy-Booger used to do that, until they put him away.
Of course Jason is to unfamiliar with mythology except judeo/Christian to realize that Odin meets all his requirements.
Odin is timeless and ageless while at the same time being older (father) to Many of the other divine beings in Norse mythology.
Odin is also all powerful , in some versions of the sagas he could stop the ragnarok of he wanted to but because he is timeless and knows everything knows that the end must come.
Odin knows the future and reveals I himself in ravens and other signs. Indeed any old man you meet along the road could be Odin!
Much like Yahweh Odin sent one of his sons to protect us from a great evil (sin for Yahweh / frost giants for Odin ) and while there is still a great deal of sin there is a distinct lack of frost giants.
So therefore Odin is the indisputable source for morality. In fact Yahweh doesn't appear in the sagas even once so we KNOW he can't do the things Odin does!
Polytheism can't make up it's mind which decrees to follow? Among the ten commandments is "Thou shalt not murder."
Other little decrees in the Bible:
You're supposed to execute people who lift a finger on Sunday.
This directly contradicts that commandment and anyone who brings that up gets a list of excuses about how it's situational which makes it subjective morality or shrug and say it's moral because "God" told somebody to do it which is still subjective and based on whimsy.
I don't believe in your God, therefore by your logic I shouldn't have any system of morality, yet I find this repugnant and hypocritical. Explain that.
it is the biblical God who transcends time (2 Peter 3:8), has all power (Genesis 17:1, Genesis 18:14), who knows all things including the future (Isaiah 46:9-10), has revealed Himself (Romans 1:18-20), and has promised to uphold the future like the past (Genesis 8:22).
No, it's a bunch of anonymous Bronze Age Arabs who wrote a book claiming their "God" does all these things, and you're dumb enough to believe them. And actually, the Flying Spaghetti Monster makes pretty much the same claims, and even more.
objective morality
You keep on saying that phrase... I do not think you know what it means.
because which god's decrees should we follow?
Oh christ... if you are really saying that this "objective morality" is simply the decrees of a god, then you are simply fucking insane.
"Objective" not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased:
See? Doesn't fit with "obeying a god's degrees" at all... unless you are a simpering moron...
As I have shown
That you're a simpering moron? Yes... yes you have.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't polytheistic gods often have, themselves, some cause which precedes time? Which they often end up killing or supplanting?
no other god fulfills all these
I'm pretty sure The Flying Spaghetti Monster fulfills all of those prerequisites.
@Goomy pls
Edit function is still crap.
No, it works just fine. You just have to have a liitle bit of patience. Wait about 60 seconds or more before you edit. I'm guessing the edit time lapse is menat to keep that nudy spammer away.
@Anon-e-moose
The ancient Babylonian Code of Hammurabi.
The Code of Hammurabi is a list of laws. What are you getting at? Do you mean the preamble?
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
