The Impact Of God's Objective Morality

[Miles]

.

In my wanderings I came across the following:

"What is Objective Morality?

Objective morality, in the simplest terms, is the belief that morality is universal, meaning that it isn't up for interpretation. Some people may think of objective morality as commandments from God, while other people may think the universe has some objective rules we may follow. There are certainly some arguments for objective morality to be had. Apologists for religion will define objective morality according to the commandments of their God. Other people may look at some universal laws, such as murder being bad."
source

Intrigued, I looked a bit further into objective morality and its likely dependence on god and found this:


“How do you define right and wrong?” This question has never been more important than in these times of eroding morals and constantly changing values. We, as a society, have moved away from absolutes. “Moral relativism” is the rule of the day.

To know the difference between right and wrong, a person must have a base to start with. This is where God comes in. He has set clear standards for right and wrong, based upon His own perfect nature. We have already learned that these standards are worth heeding because God is all-knowing, all-powerful, and ever-present. Now let’s look a bit deeper into His character.

As in ancient times, our world worships many false gods. But our Bible teaches of the one true God, the only God whose knowledge and words are true.

How can we know that we worship the true God? Is it because we feel right or have certain opinions? Certainly not, for we are flawed in our ability to know what is true or false. The final court of arbitration is God Himself. He has told us that He exists and that He is truth (Jeremiah 10:10; John 17:3; Romans 9:20).
source

Interesting, but "He has set clear standards for right and wrong, based upon His own perfect nature." raises a peculiar question. In the Bible god condones slavery:

Leviticus 25:44
As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you.

Colossians 3:22
Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not by way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord.

Exodus 21:20-21
“When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.

Exodus 21:2
When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing.

And even in New Testament times god continues to authorize the owning other human beings.

Titus 2:9
Slaves are to be submissive to their own masters in everything; they are to be well-pleasing, not argumentative,

1 Timothy 6:1
Let all who are under a yoke as slaves regard their own masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be reviled.

But as I recall, owning other humans was outlawed years ago in the USA and elsewhere because it was grossly immoral, which is why it was abolished.

"Slavery is one of the things that everyone agrees is unethical. In fact there is such general agreement that most people would probably say that 'slavery is wrong just because it's wrong'."
source

And everyone I've ever talked to says slavery is immoral, if not worse.

SO, did god blow it in condoning slavery? Or is it truly alright to own others as slaves?

What is your position
1) God condones the right to own slaves, so it's alright to do so. Too bad for the slaves, but that's just the way it goes.
2) God condones the right to own slaves, so it's alright to do so even though I feel it's an onerous and immoral decision.
3) God condones the right to own slaves, but it isn't alright to do so. God is simply wrong.

[DavidLeon]

How can anyone interested verify that this is a true statement?

Research.

Isn't that cute – by someone pretending to be debating. (First rodeo?)

You asked a question and I answered it. If you want to debate the answer the ball is in your court.

Kindly provide verifiable evidence that “unfallen man” existed. (Don't just repeat ancient folklore and tales)

Kindly provide verifiable evidence that "evolution" occurred. (Don't just repeat failed metaphysical experiment and theoretical nonsense)

The topic is not 'evolution' and I have made no claim in that regard. You made a claim regarding 'unfallen man'. In honorable and reasoned debate when a claim is challenged the claimant is expected and required to provide substantiation. Your claim has been challenged. Rise to the challenge or fail publicly.

No problem. Fallen Man

Kindly provide verifiable evidence that man is a “created being.”

Kindly provide verifiable evidence that George Washington was the first "president" of the United States Of America.

When you can't provide evidence, try diversionary tactics. Maybe that will fool some readers (perhaps the same ones who are fooled by creation tales).

I make no claim regarding George Washington. In reasoned and honorable debate I am not expected or required to substantiate a claim or statement that I have not made. With just a little debate experience one learns the meaning of stinky fish (red herring) and straw-man blunders.

Perhaps I misunderstood your intent. Were you not asking for verifiable evidence of a created being in a forum where the only evidence to that effect is dismissed? Since I was kind enough, at least in pretense, to give you the benefit of the doubt I demonstrated that you can't provide verifiable evidence that George Washington was the first "president" of the United States of America. He wasn't by the way. There were at least a dozen before him. I've made that claim and now how can I verify it? Only by providing evidence recorded in history that you will accept. Otherwise we would have an actual debate and I don't think you want that.

If you really wanted a debate and were as cute and smart as you appear to think you are then you wouldn't do that you would simply take advantage of my claim being false and demonstrate that to be the case.

Religion promoters make that claim / state that opinion. How can it be determined to be true (or false)?

Research.

Isn't that cute – by someone pretending to be debating.

You may think you're cute. Again. You asked me a question and I answered it. Debate the answer. What would you suggest? Adhere to academia and "science" because they are always right? I'll pass. What you fail to appreciate, even though I've told you repeatedly, is that faith doesn't determine what is true and false. It's faith. If you have faith that a scientific finding can be demonstrated that doesn't mean you await the approval of some metaphysical, supernatural process it means you think, based upon the evidence, that it will be so. You don't know it.

So let's say some scientist in a funny lab coat thinks that the viscosity of one brand of ketchup is greater than another. Well, then, depending upon which brand contributed the most to the funny little man's funding the answer can be determined, but if he has made a wager with the other little funny men in the laboratory which one would actually be the one ... that ... is ... faith. Simple. A child could understand.

But for some reason (dogma, doctrine, peer review, ideology, confirmation bias etc.) you can't.

[Zzyzx]

How can anyone interested verify that this is a true statement?

Research.

Isn't that cute – by someone pretending to be debating. (First rodeo?)

You asked a question and I answered it. If you want to debate the answer the ball is in your court.

I trust that readers understand that your 'answer' is invalid in debate – and understand that it is shuck-and-jive to avoid giving them evidence that your statement is true.

Kindly provide verifiable evidence that “unfallen man” existed. (Don't just repeat ancient folklore and tales)

Kindly provide verifiable evidence that "evolution" occurred. (Don't just repeat failed metaphysical experiment and theoretical nonsense)

The topic is not 'evolution' and I have made no claim in that regard. You made a claim regarding 'unfallen man'. In honorable and reasoned debate when a claim is challenged the claimant is expected and required to provide substantiation. Your claim has been challenged. Rise to the challenge or fail publicly.

No problem. Fallen Man

Kindly present an argument HERE in this debate. I do not debate in Theology, Doctrine and Dogma, or any forum that presupposes the Bible (or any other source) to be authoritative or proof of truth.

Again, I have made no claim here regarding evolution.

Kindly provide verifiable evidence that man is a “created being.”

Kindly provide verifiable evidence that George Washington was the first "president" of the United States Of America.

When you can't provide evidence, try diversionary tactics. Maybe that will fool some readers (perhaps the same ones who are fooled by creation tales).

I make no claim regarding George Washington. In reasoned and honorable debate I am not expected or required to substantiate a claim or statement that I have not made. With just a little debate experience one learns the meaning of stinky fish (red herring) and straw-man blunders.

Perhaps I misunderstood your intent. Were you not asking for verifiable evidence of a created being in a forum where the only evidence to that effect is dismissed?

Correction: I ask for verifiable evidence (that which can be fact-checked for truth and accuracy).

Unverified ancient tales are NOT verifiable evidence of truth and accuracy (except perhaps in church).

Since I was kind enough, at least in pretense, to give you the benefit of the doubt I demonstrated that you can't provide verifiable evidence that George Washington was the first "president" of the United States of America. He wasn't by the way.

I wondered if you were about to fall into a trap of your own making.

There were at least a dozen before him. I've made that claim and now how can I verify it? Only by providing evidence recorded in history that you will accept. Otherwise we would have an actual debate and I don't think you want that.

Au contraire. I have opened a thread on that topic.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=37478

If you really wanted a debate and were as cute and smart as you appear to think you are then you wouldn't do that you would simply take advantage of my claim being false and demonstrate that to be the case.

See you in the new thread.

Religion promoters make that claim / state that opinion. How can it be determined to be true (or false)?

Research.

Isn't that cute – by someone pretending to be debating.

You may think you're cute.

Correction: I have no thoughts about being cute. I am here to debate seriously – since 2007.

Again. You asked me a question and I answered it. Debate the answer. What would you suggest?

Since you ask (and only because you ask) I would suggest that you review
Debating for beginners (and others) viewtopic.php?f=7&t=9533
The Ten Commandments of Logic viewtopic.php?f=7&t=29308

Adhere to academia and "science" because they are always right? I'll pass. What you fail to appreciate, even though I've told you repeatedly, is that faith doesn't determine what is true and false.

Repeating a false claim does not make it true (even in church).

It's faith.

Correction: 'Faith' does NOT render anything true or accurate.

If you have faith that a scientific finding can be demonstrated that doesn't mean you await the approval of some metaphysical, supernatural process it means you think, based upon the evidence, that it will be so. You don't know it.

If I make any statement (scientific or not) I am prepared to supply verifying evidence – and do not shuck-and-jive by telling people to 'research' for answers.

So let's say some scientist in a funny lab coat thinks that the viscosity of one brand of ketchup is greater than another. Well, then, depending upon which brand contributed the most to the funny little man's funding the answer can be determined, but if he has made a wager with the other little funny men in the laboratory which one would actually be the one ... that ... is ... faith. Simple. A child could understand.

There are several tests to measure viscosity (no 'funny lab coat' required). In many applications, the viscosity of fluids is of critical importance and requires precise measurement (fuels, lubricants, pipelines come to mind).
https://www.cscscientific.com/csc-scien ... -viscosity
http://www.davis.com/blog/2014/12/03/3- ... viscosity/

But for some reason (dogma, doctrine, peer review, ideology, confirmation bias etc.) you can't.

I do not accept 'faith' as a proof or disproof of anything.

I disagree with the common apologist tactic of defining 'faith' so broadly as to include 'faith' that the trash will be collected on schedule or that the car will start – as though those were evidence that 'everyone has faith'.

It is rational to have some confidence in trash pickup and car starting based on past experience. It is also more rational to have confidence in viscosity measurement rather than a TV commercial.

[DavidLeon]

'Know' is a rather strong word to be using there, don't you think?

Not at all. Would it be a rather strong word to use with my nephew 'knowing' Harry Potter? Or myself knowing Frank Herbert's Dune? Douglas Adam's Hitchhiker's Guide?

If it's widely agreed that we're talking about particular works of fiction then yes, fair enough. By contrast if someone expounded on the four humours theory of medical health and, when asked, went on to say "I have no special knowledge. Most children over the age of 5 know this stuff" the implication would be that they're talking about knowing that information to be true.

But I said that I have known children over the age of 5 who know this stuff. Because they are taught it. So sit a child over the age of 5 down and teach him the four humours theory and there ya' go. Good rule in debate is don't assume the point being made is what you think it is, but rather what the one making it thinks it is. The "knowledge" I share with the forum isn't special as in the sense of a moistened bint lobbing a scimitar in your general direction. I'm just some guy, y'know? You know.

There is not an equivalency between statements like "Genesis was written under the direction of God himself" and "Genesis was compiled by unknown iron age Hebrew mythographers (from multiple earlier sources) and shows similarities with other ancient mythologies like the Enuma Elish."

Of course there is. I think one of them is true and you think the other. the first has evidence and the other doesn't.

Sometimes people find some information and don't think much about it because it confirms what they believe to be true. For example, there is not one shred of evidence that Genesis was compiled by unknown iron age Hebrew mythographers from multiple earlier sources. Not one shred. Nothing. Secondly, the circulation of earlier mythologies like Enuma Elish in no way diminishes later more specific explanations of similar events. So ... what do I do?

I ask you who was the Sumerian king who founded the kingdoms in which those "earlier" mythologies were likely circulated? Answer: The Sumerian Dumuzi, known in the Bible as Nimrod and Tammuz.

What event in the Bible could have led to the global spreading of such mythologies? Answer: The scattering after the language was confused at the tower of Babel.

What sort of mythologies are we talking about? Answer: global flood, giants, the cross.

When, according to accurate Bible chronology, did Moses write Genesis? Answer: 1513 BCE

How long did the aforementioned mythologies have time to establish themselves, and change as mythologies often do? Answer: 2269-2030 (the time in which the scattering took place) to 1513 (when Moses wrote Genesis)? Roughly 500 - 700 years.

Neither statement can be proven with certainty - and I suppose strictly speaking they're not even mutually exclusive - but the latter is backed by a wealth of evidence and the weight of most experts' conclusions.

I said not one shred. All you have to do is provide one shred of evidence to prove me wrong - BUT - speculation and conjecture predicated upon by alleged stylistic variations is not evidence, even, and I want to make this absolutely clear, even if they are the work of most experts.

So to suggest that "Genesis is true" and "Genesis is not true" are both equivalent as mere opinions would seem rather disingenuous.

Did I suggest that? Genesis is true. Clarification, but true I mean given the evidence I think it is, just like, perhaps, given the evidence you think it isn't.

Likewise for statements like "The 'fallen' creation resulted from the man Adam eating some fruit" versus "Life on earth has undergone cycles of reproduction, variation, disease, death and mass extinction for billions of years prior to the existence of humanity." Even if you imagine that the scientific evidence for the latter is less water-tight than scientists believe, the fact that there is an extensive body of compelling evidence for that conclusion is undeniable; whereas the former is based solely on a particular interpretation of some stuff that unknown iron age Hebrew mythographers wrote.*

How would the latter negate the former? I'm not a betting man but if I were I would put my money on the Bible over science without hesitation as long as I knew that science wasn't the referee in the fight. (See Lyceum for June 20, 2020)

[DavidLeon]

That's your problem.

What is?

That 'tickets to heaven' worked for you back in the day.

I saw the same circus and turned away.

Circuses are my problem?

Yes. Circuses. And bread. Bread and circuses.

Have you ever noticed that the ones making all the noise on all of the Christian and Bible debate forums are atheists?

Nope. I would assume atheists are just a group of humans your religion sees as an enemy and encourages its members to unite against, thus creating an Us vs Them mentality that strengthens said religious group.

I'm not an atheist for one.

Religious group? Me? No. I like observing atheists (and all of the unbelieving variations which are all the same to me. Agnostic, Strong, Weak, blah blah.)

They just hate to hear anyone talk about truth.

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. - Socrates

Nah. I think the debate is lost when you drink the Kool-Aid or hemlock.

What is clear by your words here is that you don't have a god helping you debate.

Correct. I wouldn't attempt to ask for the assistance of a God for such a pursuit in vanity.

It's a shame because if a religious group could show that their god concept affected the real world (for example, helping with debate), such information would go a long way.

Nonsense. First of all if healing and raising of the dead didn't work for . . . uh . . . wait a minute, that did work for Christianity or we wouldn't be having this discussion.

What we actually see here is religous people (percentage wise, not all of course) strugling to abide by the rules they agreed to.

Matthew 7:16 You will know them by their fruits.

It takes 2 to mango.

[DavidLeon]

But it is the question, MY question.

Well, okay. That's a fair enough question but you haven't really established what God's morals are. You've established some things which God has prescribed for our morality.

In any case. . . . . where does it say that god considers divorce to be immoral, but allows it? In

Matthew 19:8-9
He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”


So he considers divorce to be adultery unless its because the spouse is sexually immoral. A single extenuating circumstance.

First of all, go back 2 verses to Matthew 19:6. Secondly establish God's marriage. To give you a boost in the right direction Israel and the Christian congregation which aren't literal marriages. Since you are referring to God's moral stance on divorce in a personal sense, God being spirit without cause for literal marriage you have to consider, instead, his moral prescription to man which I think I've established very well isn't objective it's subjective. Also, as I've indicated morality in a general sense is, we agree, also subjective.

What's your next move?

So god would consider the outcome of two homosexuals having sex comparable to the harm that comes from using a baseball bat as a weapon? Not that he wouldn't, but it's hardly rational.

God thinks homosexuality is an unnatural use of sex as he intended it just as a baseball bat as a weapon would be unnatural to the intentions of the man who invented the baseball bat. (Only for the purpose of illustration, as far as I know John A. "Bud" Hillerich couldn't have cared less) Like using a remote control as a hammer, et cetera.

For the most part do both agree slavery is moral? Do both agree that homosexual sex is immoral? Do both agree that it's moral to saddle all of humanity with the sin of two fledgling humans?

Thus the subjective morality.

Which is one approach. The other is that the ruling paradigm is objective morality, both of which almost always disagree with each other over these three issues.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. What difference would it make if it were the ruling paradigm or God?

In the book of Tobit it does, and even mentions you by name, which is

Well, I uh ... does it?

[raises eyebrow]

No! Tempt me no further with tales of the deuterocanonical.

[Mithrae]

There is not an equivalency between statements like "Genesis was written under the direction of God himself" and "Genesis was compiled by unknown iron age Hebrew mythographers (from multiple earlier sources) and shows similarities with other ancient mythologies like the Enuma Elish."

Of course there is. I think one of them is true and you think the other. the first has evidence and the other doesn't.

Sometimes people find some information and don't think much about it because it confirms what they believe to be true. For example, there is not one shred of evidence that Genesis was compiled by unknown iron age Hebrew mythographers from multiple earlier sources. Not one shred. Nothing. Secondly, the circulation of earlier mythologies like Enuma Elish in no way diminishes later more specific explanations of similar events. So ... what do I do?

I ask you who was the Sumerian king who founded the kingdoms in which those "earlier" mythologies were likely circulated? Answer: The Sumerian Dumuzi, known in the Bible as Nimrod and Tammuz.

What event in the Bible could have led to the global spreading of such mythologies? Answer: The scattering after the language was confused at the tower of Babel.

What sort of mythologies are we talking about? Answer: global flood, giants, the cross.

When, according to accurate Bible chronology, did Moses write Genesis? Answer: 1513 BCE

How long did the aforementioned mythologies have time to establish themselves, and change as mythologies often do? Answer: 2269-2030 (the time in which the scattering took place) to 1513 (when Moses wrote Genesis)? Roughly 500 - 700 years.

First of all, there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that Moses wrote Genesis. Not one shred - even within the bible itself!

The key similarities with other ancient mythologies are the genre or the type of content: Anthropomorphized celestial powers, talking animals and great heroes, golden ages and tragic cataclysms, unscientific just-so stories to 'explain' natural phenomena like rainbows or legless snakes etc. We don't assume that stories of Zeus becoming a swan to woo some fair lady are true; they don't even deserve a presumptive benefit of the doubt, let alone complete devotion in the face of all scientific facts! The special pleading of adopting that attitude when it comes to Hebrew mythology is quite obvious. If it's true that parts of the Genesis story were specifically derived from Mesopotamian myths (which I've heard proposed, but not yet investigated or been persuaded of), then that would strongly imply that the later Hebrew adaptations have even less credibility than versions closer to the purported events; but that isn't the main point I was getting at.

The fact that Genesis was compiled by Hebrew mythographers is self-evident, unless you imagine that it was written by Egyptians or descended from heaven or something. That identity of the author/s is unknown, equally obvious; again, neither Genesis itself nor the rest of the 'pentateuch' nor even the rest of the Tanakh state the identity of its author. You had earlier complained about describing these books as being "written by bronze age goat herders" so I opted for iron age instead, but if you want to insist (albeit without a shred of evidence) that the authors were even more primitive than folk from the iron age, fair enough. So Genesis was compiled by unknown bronze age Hebrew mythographers, maybe. Great! What a credible source of information! And yes, there is a wealth of evidence that it was from multiple earlier sources, but I ended up making that a parenthetical comment because it's pretty much beside the point (beyond positively disproving the unevidenced speculation/dogma of Mosaic authorship); even if the Documentary Hypothesis were incorrect and Genesis was a complete original work, that hardly justifies treating mythology from unknown primitive Hebrews as any more reliable than mythology from every other culture.

Cultural impact might make it more interesting to some of us, and like all mythologies there's probably some insights into human nature and psychology we might tease out of the stories, but as far as telling us what actually happened their value is pretty close to zero unless proven otherwise.

#####
#####

That's a fair enough question but you haven't really established what God's morals are. You've established some things which God has prescribed for our morality. . . .

Since you are referring to God's moral stance on divorce in a personal sense, God being spirit without cause for literal marriage you have to consider, instead, his moral prescription to man which I think I've established very well isn't objective it's subjective. Also, as I've indicated morality in a general sense is, we agree, also subjective

This is interesting, if I'm reading you right. It sounds like you're saying we should view the deity who purportedly gave biblical prescriptions as something like a scientist who'd made some above-average intelligence ants, or someone playing a strategy game like SimCity. The scientist or the player would feel no moral compunctions about killing off some ants or simulated people on a whim, for example: The rules she gives to the little civilization she's managing are for them, for their morality, rather than necessarily reflecting standards important to herself. Is that along the lines of what you're getting at?

Of course if that were the case, it could well be that God is up there saying to himself "If I give them some really silly orders, I wonder how long it'll be before they work it out and stop obeying? Are they smart and mature enough yet to start learning some of the more important stuff I've got to share?"

[DavidLeon]

Correction: 'Faith' does NOT render anything true or accurate.

If I make any statement (scientific or not) I am prepared to supply verifying evidence – and do not shuck-and-jive by telling people to 'research' for answers.

Do so now. Supply verifying evidence that faith does not render anything true or accurate. Not that I ever suggested it did. I just want to see you attempt to do what you say you would do.

I disagree with the common apologist tactic of defining 'faith' so broadly as to include 'faith' that the trash will be collected on schedule or that the car will start – as though those were evidence that 'everyone has faith'.

Why do you disagree with that? Perhaps we need more clarification of faith. I've given the dictionary definition which included both spiritual and practical use. Am I to understand you reject the practical? If so, why?

It is rational to have some confidence in trash pickup and car starting based on past experience. It is also more rational to have confidence in viscosity measurement rather than a TV commercial.

You have some hang ups don't you? What is it with your TV comments? I stopped watching TV when I was 12. There was a period of time in my late 20's early 30's that I would watch British comedy on DVD. Since then there are 3 TV shows I would watch, only if they are recorded on DVR so I can forward through the commercials. House M.D. South Park and Mom.

Isn't Television one of those wonderful things "science" takes credit for?

[Zzyzx]

Correction: 'Faith' does NOT render anything true or accurate.

If I make any statement (scientific or not) I am prepared to supply verifying evidence – and do not shuck-and-jive by telling people to 'research' for answers.

Do so now. Supply verifying evidence that faith does not render anything true or accurate. Not that I ever suggested it did. I just want to see you attempt to do what you say you would do.

A diversionary tactic by someone who does not supply verifying evidence to support his claims but asks for someone else to do so.

Those familiar with the Bible should be aware that even it states clearly that 'faith' is 'not what we see but what we hope for'. A rational person understands that hope IS not proof (though it may appear so to apologists).

Hebrews 11:1Now faith is the assurance of what we hope for and the certainty of what we do not see.

Romans 8:24 For in this hope we were saved; but hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he can already see?

2 Corinthians 4:18 So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.

2 Corinthians 5:7 For we walk by faith, not by sight.

Hebrews 3:6 But Christ is faithful as the Son over God's house. And we are His house, if we hold firmly to our confidence and the hope of which we boast.

I disagree with the common apologist tactic of defining 'faith' so broadly as to include 'faith' that the trash will be collected on schedule or that the car will start – as though those were evidence that 'everyone has faith'.

Why do you disagree with that?

I disagree with conflating real-world confidence with beliefs in unicorns, leprechauns, and gods.

Perhaps we need more clarification of faith. I've given the dictionary definition which included both spiritual and practical use. Am I to understand you reject the practical? If so, why?

Kindly restate the definition that includes practical use.

It is rational to have some confidence in trash pickup and car starting based on past experience. It is also more rational to have confidence in viscosity measurement rather than a TV commercial.

You have some hang ups don't you?

Such personal remarks are inappropriate and are not welcome in this Forum. Kindly review Forum Rules.

What is it with your TV comments?

Such personal remarks are inappropriate and are not welcome in this Forum. Kindly review Forum Rules.

I stopped watching TV when I was 12.

What was the source of your comment about ketchup and lab coats -- a TV commercial? Be aware that there are sites that track TV commercials (such as www.ispot.tv)

There was a period of time in my late 20's early 30's that I would watch British comedy on DVD. Since then there are 3 TV shows I would watch, only if they are recorded on DVR so I can forward through the commercials. House M.D. South Park and Mom.

So what?

Isn't Television one of those wonderful things "science" takes credit for?

Science provided the means to broadcast audio and video. It did not / does not control content. Science also provided information on which electricity is generated and distributed (to power everything from an electric chair to a ventilator and way beyond) – but does not control its use.

Running a little short on legitimate debate items?

[DavidLeon]

Correction: 'Faith' does NOT render anything true or accurate.

If I make any statement (scientific or not) I am prepared to supply verifying evidence – and do not shuck-and-jive by telling people to 'research' for answers.

Do so now. Supply verifying evidence that faith does not render anything true or accurate. Not that I ever suggested it did. I just want to see you attempt to do what you say you would do.

Those familiar with the Bible should be aware that even it states clearly that 'faith' is 'not what we see but what we hope for'. A rational person understands that hope IS not proof (though it may appear so to apologists).

Hebrews 11:1Now faith is the assurance of what we hope for and the certainty of what we do not see.

Romans 8:24 For in this hope we were saved; but hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he can already see?

2 Corinthians 4:18 So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.

2 Corinthians 5:7 For we walk by faith, not by sight.

Hebrews 3:6 But Christ is faithful as the Son over God's house. And we are His house, if we hold firmly to our confidence and the hope of which we boast.

The Bible isn't authoritative here. Please supply verifying evidence that faith does not render anything true or accurate.

I disagree with conflating real-world confidence with beliefs in unicorns, leprechauns, and gods.

Define gods.

Perhaps we need more clarification of faith. I've given the dictionary definition which included both spiritual and practical use. Am I to understand you reject the practical? If so, why?

Kindly restate the definition that includes practical use.

Sure, buddy. complete trust or confidence in someone or something. Example: "this restores one's faith in politicians"

[Zzyzx]

The Bible isn't authoritative here. Please supply verifying evidence that faith does not render anything true or accurate.

Those familiar with debate and with C&A Guidelines are aware that: “using the Bible as the only source to argue what is authentic Christianity is legitimate.”

Thus, authentic Christianity states clearly that faith represents 'hope' (not truth).

However, since an apparent apologist rejects statements from the Bible, here is additional information from the Encyclopedia Britannica

Different conceptions of faith cohere with different views of its relation to reason or rationality. The classic medieval understanding of faith, set forth by Thomas Aquinas, saw it as the belief in revealed truths on the authority of God as their ultimate source and guarantor.

Thus, though the ultimate object of faith is God, its immediate object is the body of propositions articulating the basic Christian dogmas. Such faith is to be distinguished from knowledge. Whereas the propositions that are the objects of scientia, or knowledge, compel belief by their self-evidence or their demonstrability from self-evident premises, the propositions accepted by faith do not thus compel assent but require a voluntary act of trusting acceptance. As unforced belief, faith is “an act of the intellect assenting to the truth at the command of the will” (Summa theologiae, II/II, Q. 4, art. 5); and it is because this is a free and responsible act that faith is one of the virtues. It follows that one cannot have knowledge and faith at the same time in relation to the same proposition; faith can only arise in the absence of knowledge. Faith also differs from mere opinion, which is inherently changeable. Opinions are not matters of absolute commitment but allow in principle for the possibility of doubt and change. Faith, as the wholehearted acceptance of revealed truth, excludes doubt.

In the wider context of his philosophy, Aquinas held that human reason, without supernatural aid, can establish the existence of God and the immortality of the soul; for those who cannot or do not engage in such strenuous intellectual activity, however, these matters are also revealed and can be known by faith. Faith, though, extends beyond the findings of reason in accepting further truths such as the triune nature of God and the divinity of Christ. Aquinas thus supported the general (though not universal) Christian view that revelation supplements, rather than cancels or replaces, the findings of sound philosophy.

From a skeptical point of view, which does not acknowledge divine revelation, this Thomist conception amounts to faith—belief that is without evidence or that is stronger than the evidence warrants, the gap being filled by the believer’s own will to believe. As such it attracts the charge that belief upon insufficient evidence is always irrational.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Christ ... and-reason

I disagree with conflating real-world confidence with beliefs in unicorns, leprechauns, and gods.

Define gods.

My working definition of 'gods' is: any of thousands of proposed supernatural entities worshiped, feared, loved, and/or fought over by humans – and claimed to have power over nature or humans (alive or dead) – but not shown to be anything more than mythical / imaginary products of human imagination.

Your turn: Define gods

Perhaps we need more clarification of faith. I've given the dictionary definition which included both spiritual and practical use. Am I to understand you reject the practical? If so, why?

Kindly restate the definition that includes practical use.

Sure, buddy.

Terms of endearment are not appropriate.

complete trust or confidence in someone or something. Example: "this restores one's faith in politicians"

I strongly disagree with 'complete trust or confidence'.