Originally posted by FetchmyjunkOh please, this is surely one of your piss-take questions. I am clearly not saying you "should" or "shouldn't" do anything. Read my previous post again. Like I said, as far as I am concerned, you can believe whatever you want and claim whatever you want as being "true".
So people shouldn't believe something based on the fact that it is true?
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFThe way I see it is because you don't view your beliefs to be true. Surely if they were true you would want other people to believe the truth as well?
Oh please, this is surely one of your piss-take questions. I am clearly not saying you "should" or "shouldn't" do anything. Read my previous post again. Like I said, as far as I am concerned, you can believe whatever you want and claim whatever you want as being "true".
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkHang on. Don't tell us... let me see if I can guess. You reckon Christianity is "true" and Hinduism is not "true", and the proof of this is: Christianity and Hinduism can't both the true at the same time, yes? 😛
Christianty and Hinduism can't both the true at the same time.
Originally posted by FMFNo that is not the proof. Do you agree that Christianity and Hinduism can't both be true?
Hang on. Don't tell us... let me see if I can guess. You reckon Christianity is "true" and Hinduism is not "true", and the [b]proof of this is: Christianity and Hinduism can't both the true at the same time, yes? 😛[/b]
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkSo, non-universal laws do not require a lawmaker. Also laws not pertaining to morality do not require a lawmaker. So, for example, the laws of physics do not require a lawmaker. This is an odd position. Most people would regard the laws of physics as being somewhat more fundamental than moral codes.
I would say all 3.
You haven't answered the main question. Why does universal moral law entail a lawmaker?
2 edits
Originally posted by DeepThoughtHow did you logically make that conclusion from what I said?
So, non-universal laws do not require a lawmaker. Also laws not pertaining to morality do not require a lawmaker. So, for example, the laws of physics do not require a lawmaker. This is an odd position. Most people would regard the laws of physics as being somewhat more fundamental than moral codes.
You haven't answered the main question. Why does universal moral law entail a lawmaker?
I believe it does because I believe every law has a law maker. God put a universal moral law in place just like he put the universal law of gravity in place.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkWell, unlike you, I don't have a prepackaged off the shelf retail religion that I seek to proselytize, and - again, unlike you - I do not have any delusions of grandeur that I seek to attach to my lack of belief in your religion [or in my neighbours' religions, for that matter].
The way I see it is because you don't view your beliefs to be true. Surely if they were true you would want other people to believe the truth as well?
If anyone here thinks that what I believe is perhaps closer to the "truth" than what you believe, then that will be a bi-product of the conversation we have been having in this public place.
However, I seriously doubt there are many people - if any at all - who are interested in you and me talking, and I am certainly not interested in keeping any kind of tally.
Originally posted by FMFDo you believe that your beliefs are true? Yes or No?
Well, unlike you, I don't have a prepackaged off the shelf retail religion that I seek to proselytize, and - again, unlike you - I do not have any delusions of grandeur that I seek to attach to my lack of belief in your religion [or in my neighbours' religions, for that matter].
If anyone here thinks that what I believe is perhaps closer to the "truth" than ...[text shortened]... nterested in you and me talking, and I am certainly not interested in keeping any kind of tally.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkIf it turns out that God has revealed Himself to both, and did so deliberately in different ways in different parts of the world, then I suppose it is possible that they are both "true", aside from any claims either religion has generated about it being the 'only one' and all others being 'wrong'. That might be an understandable upshot of overreaching partisan spirit and cultural chauvinism . So, in essence, and aside from that, no, I don't agree that Christianity and Hinduism can't both be true.
Do you agree that Christianity and Hinduism can't both be true?
Originally posted by FMFTwo contradictory beliefs about an actual event can't both be true.
If it turns out that God has revealed Himself to both, and did so deliberately in different ways in different parts of the world, then I suppose it is possible that they are both "true", aside from any claims either religion has generated about it being the 'only one' and all others being 'wrong'. That might be an understandable upshot of overreaching partisan s ...[text shortened]... sence, and aside from that, no, I don't agree that Christianity and Hinduism can't both be true.