thehomer:

I know that they're different. The question of whether or not there is a pre-existing love is supposedly answered with the description of the Christian God as loving. I'm using that God as an example in this discussion. If you wish to talk about a God that doesn't love, then say so explicitly.

Mr_Anony:
Can't you see the circular argument this leads to; "Humans should be rational because they are rational". As I answered earlier, I don't see any reason why sapient creatures are required to be moral. And you haven't shown me one.
While I agree that sapience allows us to tell between good and evil but then it doesn't impose upon us an ought i.e. it doesn't impose an obligation to choose good over evil or evil over good. An ought can only come from a higher moral authority than us.

Mr_Anony:
Wrong. First of all your bachelor argument is a circular one. Secondly you haven't addressed why the creator ought to love in the first place. That's the question before you.

Mr_Anony:
The objections you raised there look the same to me. I thought my responses here also addressed the objections you made in that post. If there is anything I've missed, quote it specifically and I'll consider it.

Mr_Anony:
Good, now you seem to finally be getting the point which is that God may or may not love (He is free in that regard). The fact that God happens love isn't because He is mandated to love but because He freely chooses to love. That's the point I and Ihedinobi have been making all along.

Deep Sight:

1. The reason virtual particles are said to have no apparent cause is exactly the fact that they are seen to be emerging in a quantum vacuum, which represents nothingness.

@DeepSight. God being the creator does not owe love to his creation sentient or not. The fact that God loves is because He chooses to love and not because man merits love in any way whatsoever. This is the reason why God deserves worship. God doesn't have to love man. If God had no choice in the matter, then He wouldn't deserve worship because since He can't help but love you, there wouldn't be any need to be grateful for His love.

Now I will grant that because God loves, certain "moral expectations" come into play but these are resulting from His choice to love and not that it is compulsory for Him to love in the first place. It is a circular argument to say that "God ought to love because He is loving".

I really need you to follow your logical side on this one and not your emotional side that rejects the argument because you deem it "insensitive"

Kay 17:

Anony's quote

How does the above correspond with the declaration "God is Love"? If God's nature is inexplicably woven with love, then how does God choose what's not within his nature to dispose?! If God is Love, then God can't decide or choose to Love. An entity can't choose his natural character, except if he is supernatural.

thehomer:

I notice that like Ihedinobi, you're about to start dodging direct questions despite the fact that I've been answering yours.

Secondly, "Humans should be rational because they are rational" isn't the point I'm making at all. The point I'm making is that rationality entails acting in a way that is rational. If humans are rational, then they would act in a way consistent with being rational.


Here's a syllogism now please show me how it is circular.

1) If humans are considered as being rational, then they would act in ways consistent with rationality.
2) Humans are considered as being rational.
3) They would act in ways consistent with rationality.

The problem you're demonstrating here is that you think that an ought can only come from a higher moral authority. Like I said to Ihedinobi, what imposes the ought is the very concept of morality. This is why I need you to tell me what you think morality is.

How on earth is that circular? Can you actually demonstrate that it is circular?
Your question on the creator is just absurd. I've told you time and again that it is a description not an argument. Don't you understand the difference between the two concepts?

You've missed identifying the creator you have in mind or accepting the one I'm addressing.
You've missed identifying the sorts of entities the very concept of morality applies to.
You've missed saying what you actually think morality is.

Now will you address them?

Kay 17:

Anony's quote

How does the above correspond with the declaration "God is Love"? If God's nature is inexplicably woven with love, then how does God choose what's not within his nature to dispose?! If God is Love, then God can't decide or choose to Love. An entity can't choose his natural character, except if he is supernatural.

Mr_Anony:
I do not have a selfish interest in seeing a better world, I preach and I pray that God's kingdom will come on earth and all will come to know God almighty and the great love He has for us.
It is because God has extended to me; a love that I do not deserve, and I can't even begin to deserve - I was dirty and filthy and detestable but God had mercy on me and cleaned me up.
How can I not talk about Him? How can I not tell everyone else about Him?
As tiny as insignificant as I am, the Almighty God who made the whole universe chose to hang out with me. Who am I and what have I done to deserve such great affection? Tell me.
With all my sins and my desperately wicked heart, God still forgives me.
I am like a beggar who has found a place where there is abundant bread. It would be wrong for me not to share this bread with my fellow beggars and show them the man that saved me from death. The man Jesus Christ.
The man who chose to die in my place so that I could escape. Why will I not talk about Him?

wiegraf: Are we doing anonyquotes



Just a note, I'm not a fellow beggar please. Keep your "love" and special "relationship with god" away from me if you can.

Nattylad: The worst moment for an atheist is when he is really thankful bt he doesnt know who to thank

Mr_Anony:

Mr_Anony:
This is disingenuous of you because we both know that he was referring to an obligation relating to the creator and not the creation.

Mr_Anony:
Really? So you seriously can't see that numbers 2 and 3 are merely two halves of number 1?

Mr_Anony:
Premise 1: A creator is/is not bound by a moral obligation towards his creation.
Premise 2: God is a creator and man is His creation
Conclusion: Therefore God is/is not bound by a moral obligation towards man.

Mr_Anony:
Morality is To discriminate between right and wrong. . . .and no I don't see how the mere concept of discriminating between right and wrong imposes upon one an ought to do either right or wrong.

Mr_Anony:
If you really can't see how your argument is circular then I really can't help you. A bachelor by definition is an unmarried man. So your argument really was:

"an unmarried man ought not to be married because to be an unmarried man means to not be married" See the problem with it now?

Upon looking at it again, I see an even more profound problem which perhaps will help you see the difference between an ought and an is. Compare these two following statements and tell me if they mean the same thing to you.

"an unmarried man ought not to be married"

"an unmarried man is not to be married"

My point(if you got it) is that you don't derive an ought from an is i.e. Concerning the creator; A description of him does not automatically impose an ought upon him.

Mr_Anony:
1. I have told you before that it is unnecessary because it would be assuming an answer before asking the question. Basically you are requesting that I ask you a loaded question. That is not how it is done.

Mr_Anony:
2. I have already agreed with you that the concept of morality applies to sapient beings but I made it clear why it doesn't impose an ought upon them.

Mr_Anony:
3. I have now. See above

Deep Sight:


Anyway, this thread wins the all-time award for derailment into a plethora of other topics and is still going strong at 35 pages. Its become too untidy and muddled up, different issues flying every where. I want to create a thread specially on the nature of God so that we can discuss some of God's attributes as discussed here - but not just on the question of moral agency. We can also sum up your and thehomer's core points there, but I have my own questions for you which stem particularly from the idea of God as having certain choices.

Mr_Anony:
Morality is To discriminate between right and wrong. . . .and no I don't see how the mere concept of discriminating between right and wrong imposes upon one an ought to do either right or wrong.

Mr_Anony:
Let me put it like this for you. Supposing I say:

"Kay 17 is honest by nature Yoo can trust Kay 17 with your life": Does this mean that therefore Kay 17 totally lacks any ability whatsoever to choose whether to be honest or not?

Logicboy03:

Wouldnt it be a boring thread? It would be Anony vs the rest. Too easy to destory their points. See how Ihedinobi is fumbling......

BTW, I still have an itch for debunking you that needs to be scratched

Deep Sight:

Are you really thinking carefully about what you are saying here? I know you to be a careful thinker, but are you sure you are not being colored here?

For otherwise, I cannot understand how you can say that "Love is not obligatory" for a being that is in fact said to be love itself.

Speaking from the point of view of the intrinsic intangible ontology of God, surely you are familiar with and understand the statements -

"God is Love"

"God is Truth"

Just so we are clear, these statements above are statements of the intrinsic intangible ontology of God - and not statements of things that God does. In other words, TRUTH is what God IS; LOVE is what God IS, and really, with deeper understanding these things are ONE.

As such, it then becomes paradoxical to say that what God ontologicaly is, he has no obligation to be. This would be like saying that water has no obligation to consist of Hydrogen and Oxygen. Or that a sphere has no obligation to be round. Or that a triangle is not obliged to have three sides.

Absurdity, no?

I hope you get my drift. As for Ihedinobi, I thought he meant love in a general sense, either for God or for man.

Anyway, this thread wins the all-time award for derailment into a plethora of other topics and is still going strong at 35 pages. Its become too untidy and muddled up, different issues flying every where. I want to create a thread specially on the nature of God so that we can discuss some of God's attributes as discussed here - but not just on the question of moral agency. We can also sum up your and thehomer's core points there, but I have my own questions for you which stem particularly from the idea of God as having certain choices. As being perfect. As making interventions. As correcting anomalies. And much more.

Mr_Anony:
My dear friend deepsight. surely you do realize that "God is Love" and "God is Truth" are not the same as "Love is God" and "Truth is God".

If you are free to talk right now, I'll give you a phone call. Perhaps my speech will express it better than my typing.

Deep Sight:


Yes I am free to talk, but will still like to address other wider issues on the nature of God in a thread i will create, if you do not mind.

Mr_Anony:
That's absolutely fine. My call is not to stop you from starting the thread but to better explain my points.

Logicboy03:



Dont fall for it Deepsight! Anony knows an impending slaughter when he sees one.


He wants to hamper your ability to question his failed notions on God and love and moral authority.


Please read;

https://www.nairaland.com/1202716/cowardice-christianity-re-cowardice-atheism

ooman:

deepsight has a very crude knowledge of God. People are not deists anymore this days but deepsight hung on to the concept thinking life from non life is impossible.

Logicboy03:


To be honest, DeepSight's deism makes more sense than your life from nothing.


We dont know how the first life came but we know that life came from life. To say life came from nothing or some inanimate matter you dont know is fallacious without proof.


Unfortuantely Deepsight's God must be designed with complexity more complex than the complex design that we are made of. Which there is no evidence for




Or did I get your position on first life wrong

ooman:

oh, logic boy, you dont want to do this, davidylan, deepsight, etc only ended up with abuses and never a single premise of rebuff when i presented it to them because they can't understand it.

Are you sure you are up to this?

abiogenesis is wrong, but chemical evolution is never wrong.

Logicboy03:


To be honest, DeepSight's deism makes more sense than your life from nothing.


We dont know how the first life came but we know that life came from life. To say life came from nothing or some inanimate matter you dont know is fallacious without proof.


Unfortuantely Deepsight's God must be designed with complexity more complex than the complex design that we are made of. Which there is no evidence for




Or did I get your position on first life wrong

poopli:

it is true, organic evoltuion is the only explanation for all life, even though we dont have proof yet, it is the only possibility

Logicboy03:


Mind you, I dont believe in any god.

What I have a problem with is anyone claiming to know how first life came about especially theists with their Gods or atheists with some abiogenesis woo woo.

Your chemical evolution is a possiblity...aliens could have put the chemicals and the catalysts for life on earth.....it could have been spontaneous.......all of these are possiblities hat need evidence before I believe they happened

ooman:

I just told you abiogenesis is a wrong conception, we know this now but the philosophies behind chemical evolution and not the proofs yet, confirms it possibility. Further research will prove this.