Originally posted by FMFYou are the one who suggests that something can be more evil than something else. I contend that evil is like cancer whether you have a little bit or a lot your still evil, and you fall short of the glory of God. Unless you have the cure you will die in isolation from God.
Would it be morally justifiable to torture someone to stop them being angry with their brother or being proud or being lustful? You have claimed that those things are equally as evil as murdering millions of people.
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFYes it does. If you don't know who he is or what his characteristics are, how do you know he is the lawmaker of your universal law?
What does it matter? You don't know who he is and you can't prove he doesn't exist. So you have to take my word for it as to what the "universal law" is.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkSo would you torture someone to stop them being proud (for example) in the same way as you'd torture them to stop them murdering millions of people, seeing as - according to your "universal moral lae" - 'pride' and 'mass murder' are "equally evil"?
You are the one who suggests that something can be more evil than something else. I contend that evil is like cancer whether you have a little bit or a lot your still evil, and you fall short of the glory of God. Unless you have the cure you will die in isolation from God.
Originally posted by FMFNo I won't because I am not God and I have no right to play God.
So would you torture someone to stop them being proud (for example) in the same way as you'd torture them to stop them murdering millions of people, seeing as - according to your "universal moral lae" - 'pride' and 'mass murder' are "equally evil"?
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI haven't said I don't know who he is; I have said you can't prove he doesn't exist. Your disbelief has no affect on the "universal law". You can either simply choose to believe the "universal law" or tough cheese.
Yes it does. If you don't know who he is or what his characteristics are, how do you know he is the lawmaker of your universal law?
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkBut trying to stop the nuclear bombing of millions is playing God too. It might be God's will that they die that way. It might be God's will that you don't torture the man who's going to carry out God's will. To intervene would surely be you playing God.
No I won't because I am not God and I have no right to play God.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI contend that exterminating 6,000,000 people in concentration camps is more "evil" than getting angry with one's brother. That you can't differentiate between the degree of "wrong" involved in those two deeds suggests to me that you don't have a credible or even recognizable moral compass of any kind.
You are the one who suggests that something can be more evil than something else. I contend that evil is like cancer whether you have a little bit or a lot your still evil, and you fall short of the glory of God. Unless you have the cure you will die in isolation from God.
Originally posted by FMFI already believe in the God of the Bible as the universal law maker. If you can posit a more compelling one feel free to go for it.
I haven't said I don't know who he is; I have said you can't prove he doesn't exist. Your disbelief has no affect on the "universal law". You can either simply choose to believe the "universal law" or tough cheese.
Originally posted by FMFAnd saying it might be Gods will for them to die that way is also playing God.
But trying to stop the nuclear bombing of millions is playing God too. It might be God's will that they die that way. It might be God's will that you don't torture the man who's going to carry out God's will. To intervene would surely be you playing God.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkIn science, a law is typically considered a brute fact and thus cannot have a maker. I think the same would apply to anything worthy of the name 'universal law'. If it was at one time non-existent, then it is not universal. If it always existed, then it was not made and did not have a maker.
I already believe in the God of the Bible as the universal law maker. If you can posit a more compelling one feel free to go for it.
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFTell me if 'evil' is real or imaginary or universal or relative. Can you can offer me a more coherent theory than the Bible on the existence and origin of evil? If you can't I am going to have to stick with what the Bible says.
I contend that exterminating 6,000,000 people in concentration camps is more "evil" than getting angry with one's brother. That you can't differentiate between the degree of "wrong" involved in those two deeds suggests to me that you don't have a credible or even recognizable moral compass of any kind.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI don't feel any need to posit anything. The fact that your beliefs diverge from mine is irrelevant to me. I don't recognize you as a competitor and I am certainly not intetested in being compelling.
I already believe in the God of the Bible as the universal law maker. If you can posit a more compelling one feel free to go for it.
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhy can't a universal law have started at the beginning of time?
In science, a law is typically considered a brute fact and thus cannot have a maker. I think the same would apply to anything worthy of the name 'universal law'. If it was at one time non-existent, then it is not universal. If it always existed, then it was not made and did not have a maker.