The Moral Argument for God's Existence

@dj2becker said
If you say that you do have an objective standard of morality, then where did you get this objective standard since an objective standard is one that is not based on your opinion or your experience?

If you say that you do have an objective standard of morality, then where did you get this objective standard since an objective standard is one that is not based on your opinion or your experience?

If you say that you do have an objective standard of morality, then where did you get this objective standard since an objective standard is one that is not based on your opinion or your experience?

It certainly isn't the Bible since it's so widely open to interpretation. Over the centuries Christians have been on completely opposite sides as to topics such as slavery, capital punishment, race, women, LGBT, etc. The list goes on and on. People interpret the Bible based on their own standards.

@thinkofone said
If you say that you do have an objective standard of morality, then where did you get this objective standard since an objective standard is one that is not based on your opinion or your experience?

If you say that you do have an objective standard of morality, then where did you get this objective standard since an objective standard is one that is not based on ...[text shortened]... women, LGBT, etc. The list goes on and on. People interpret the Bible based on their own standards.

The fact that some people may interpret the Bible based on their own standards doesn’t mean that everyone does and neither does it mean the Bible is based on the standards and opinions of its human authors. (For those who believe it to be divinely inspired).

@dj2becker said
The fact that some people may interpret the Bible based on their own standards doesn’t mean that everyone does and neither does it mean the Bible is based on the standards and opinions of its human authors. (For those who believe it to be divinely inspired).

Since the Bible is incoherent and widely open to interpretation, ALL people interpret the the Bible based on their own standard.

If this isn't the case, then what's the standard for determining which interpretation is NOT based on their own standard?

@thinkofone said
Since the Bible is widely open to interpretation, ALL people interpret the the Bible based on their own standard.

If this isn't the case, then what's the standard for determining which interpretation is NOT based on their own standard?

The Bible contains words. Those words have meanings. The meanings are generally agreed upon in dictionaries. Each person doesn't use their own dictionary. Maybe you have your own dictionary that we are not aware of?

@dj2becker said
The Bible contains words. Those words have meanings. The meanings are generally agreed upon in dictionaries. Each person doesn't use their own dictionary.

That doesn't answer the question.

What's the standard for determining which interpretation is NOT based on their own standard?

@thinkofone said
That doesn't answer the question.

What's the standard for determining which interpretation is NOT based on their own standard?

Give me a scenario. Use a passage of scripture. Try to be cogent while you're at it.

@dj2becker said
Give me a scenario. Use a passage of scripture. Try to be cogent while you're at it.

The question wasn't directed at any given passage. It was directed at the Bible as a whole. That was the context of the question.

I'll even rephrase:
What's the standard for determining which interpretation [of the Bible as a whole] is NOT based on their own standard?

@thinkofone said
The question wasn't directed at any given passage. It was directed at the Bible as a whole. That was the context of the question.

I'll even rephrase:
What's the standard for determining which interpretation [of the Bible as a whole] is NOT based on their own standard?

If everyone uses their own standard and everyone's standard was different no one would ever interpret the Bible in the same way. We both know that isn't true. Most Christians here (apart from Dive) agree on most of the Bible. (Literally)

@dj2becker said
If everyone uses their own standard and everyone's standard was different no one would ever interpret the Bible in the same way. We both know that isn't true. Most Christians here (apart from Dive) agree on most of the Bible.

That doesn't answer the question.

I've given you a few opportunities to answer the question. You keep side-stepping it. Here's yet another chance.

What's the standard for determining which interpretation [of the Bible as a whole] is NOT based on their own standard?

@dj2becker said
The Bible contains words. Those words have meanings. The meanings are generally agreed upon in dictionaries. Each person doesn't use their own dictionary. Maybe you have your own dictionary that we are not aware of?

1. There are many bibles containing different books.
(Individuals have to make their own subjective choice which to follow)

2. Even using the same bible different churches disagree on interpretation.
(Church leaders make their own subjective decisions.)

3. The books of the bible were originally written in Aramaic, Greek, Gobbledgook
then translated (subjectively) into Latin, then translated again (subjectively) into 17th Century English. There are translations from that too.
All translations by their nature are up for interpretation

4. Bearing all the above in mind.
We then have the question of fact or allegory for practically every passage.
Another subjective choice.

Now you have the audacity to claim objective morality from all of that!?

@dj2becker said
The Bible contains words. Those words have meanings. The meanings are generally agreed upon in dictionaries.

Dictionaries do not even agree on usage and spelling for quite
common modern language let alone 400 year-old English!

@Ghost-of-a-Duke

No, scientists will 'never' conclude we did actually come from one couple (perfectly evolved in a magical garden or otherwise).

Scientific discoveries go forward, not backwards.

Wishful thinking only.

So scientists went from saying the visible universe was eternal TO saying there was a beginning in a Big Bang apparently.

Was that a step forward or a step backward ?

I say we should follow the evidence where ever it leads.
In this case the Big Bang replaced the concept of an eternal universe.

You don't know that there will NEVER be a rethinking of the origin of human beings.

And stepping AWAY from the Bible = scientific progress is your Atheist's wishful daydream.

No, scientists will 'never' conclude we did actually come from one couple (perfectly evolved in a magical garden or otherwise).

More realistic and less "magical" is the theory that random variation and natural selection caused dirt to finally become self conscious ?

Hey, if a frog turns suddenly into a prince , it is called a fairy tale.

If a frog turns into a prince and it takes 20 million years, that's called science.

@sonship said
@Ghost-of-a-Duke

No, scientists will 'never' conclude we did actually come from one couple (perfectly evolved in a magical garden or otherwise).

Scientific discoveries go forward, not backwards.

Wishful thinking only.

So scientists went from saying the visible universe was eternal TO saying there was a beginning in a Big Bang apparently.

Was tha ...[text shortened]... And stepping AWAY from the Bible = scientific progress is your Atheist's wishful daydream.

It would be advisable for you sir to accept that the creation story in the Bible is not a literal account and better spend your energies trying to balance human evolution with divine creation.

@sonship said

No, scientists will 'never' conclude we did actually come from one couple (perfectly evolved in a magical garden or otherwise).

More realistic and less "magical" is the theory that random variation and natural selection caused dirt to finally become self conscious ?

Hey, if a frog turns into a prince , it is called a fairy tale.

If a frog turns into a prince and it takes 20 million years, that's called science.

Dirt 'did not' become self-conscious. This 'will not' become my view irrespective of how many times you allege that falsehood. (3 times now I believe, despite repeated correction).

And having just spoken about talking donkeys and the like you'd be wise not to throw around fairy tale sarcasm.