boatsnguitars wrote: ↑Sun Jan 21, 2024 1:31 pm
This has reached the maximum point of absurdity. I can't understand why you don't understand any position that isn't your own, or, if you do, you seem to relish in trying to pretend you don't.
More baseless personal accusations.
Then you end with a Bible verse, as if that means something to the conversation!
I'm simply backing up my position.
You only assert God is the source of OMVs, which you can't show. But, worse, you can't show his morals are OMVs.
I've presented my arguments and I'll let readers decide.
This is a laughable thread at this point.
More evidence you don't have any rational counter arguments, but just continually throw out uncivil comments.
You keep trying to do that age-old apologist dance of "But how can you say what's right or wrong if you don't have an objective measure!?"
Has there been any rational response from the skeptics on this?
I keep answering: According to whom? The law, the person being harmed, the group trying to harm the person, or some "God-Only-Knows" way.
And I keep answering according to you. It's just a simple exercise to explore the situations I've proposed.
I will repeat:
You can't know if God exists.
You can't know if God is a moral agent capable of policing morals.
You can't know if God would lay down Objective moral laws.
Repeating claims doesn't make it any more convincing.
Also, how do you know God does not exist? Especially in light of the fact I've produced numerous arguments for the existence of God, yet there has not been a single rational argument to support no gods existing.
Why throw out "policing morals"? Nobody has been talking about that.
God being the source of objective morality is the only viable explanation on the table. It is entirely reasonable to then accept that explanation.
"Atheist philosopher J. L. Mackie accepted that, if objective moral truths existed, they would warrant a supernatural explanation."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_morality
You can't even name one Objective Moral Law that we'd agree on - despite the fact that you (occasionally) agree that agreement doesn't mean a moral value is Objective or not.
You don't agree the items I listed are objective? If not, do you agree they are subjective?
I'm shocked you tried to define OMVs this late in the game ("Again, what distinguishes objective moral values is they apply universally to all times and cultures.") As if that wasn't what I was already addressing! I know that!
If you knew, then why did you ask, "what distinguishes an OMV?"
As for objective moral applying universally, I've already mentioned it in my argument for the objective morality of Christianity:
otseng wrote: ↑Sat Dec 23, 2023 8:22 am
Objective morality would have to apply to all people at all times at all locations. Since God is the creator of all and above time and he is the source of morality and goodness, then the morality instilled in us as image bearers of God would make it objective.
This would even be true before any religious texts have been written (like the Torah). People would have an objective sense of morality before any followers wrote any books.
So which ones have applied to all times and cultures?
Look at your statement:
"Again, what distinguishes objective moral values is they apply universally to all times and cultures."
So which ones have applied to all times and cultures?
That's why I've presented my list, multiple times actually. If OMV do not exist, then what you're saying is everything I listed must be subjective. Do you agree they are all subjective (according to you)?