Your argument is very weak.

Wilgrea7:


Care to enlighten me on how you arrived at this conclusion?



I never tried to use the multiplicity of gods as a way to invalidate anyone's existence. If you want to claim your god is the creator of the universe and thus the arbiter of the moral laws within it, then you need to prove it.

To use your king analogy, prove that person A is indeed the "king" as he claims to be.

My intent here is not to prove that God A or B is the true God. That's a secondary issue. The primary issue is that a God exists.

FxMasterz:


My intent here is not to prove that God A or B is the true God. That's a secondary issue. The primary issue is that a God exists.

Why not Gods exist?

FxMasterz:


Moral laws are unwritten universal laws. Everyone automatically knows what's morally wrong or right.

This is so not true. Just as you would not say please and thank you if your parents never taught you to, so too would you not learn not to lie and cheat and steal if no one taught you not to.

Steep:
My world view is not subjective, I believe what is wrong is wrong universally because there is a universal creator. Atheism cannot allow for objective morality.

Sorry, but I do not think you have sufficient intellectual capacity for this conversation so I'm going to let you be.

FxMasterz:


My intent here is not to prove that God A or B is the true God. That's a secondary issue. The primary issue is that a God exists.

This thread is about morality, not the existence of god. The reason i asked you to prove god A or B, is because it would help us define the arbiter of the alleged objective moral laws you believe exist.

Wilgrea7:


Care to enlighten me on how you arrived at this conclusion?



I never tried to use the multiplicity of gods as a way to invalidate anyone's existence. If you want to claim your god is the creator of the universe and thus the arbiter of the moral laws within it, then you need to prove it.

To use your king analogy, prove that person A is indeed the "king" as he claims to be.

The Cosmological Argument: This argument posits that everything in the universe has a cause, and since the universe itself must have a cause, there must be a First Cause or an Uncaused Cause, which is identified as the Creator or God. The Kalam Cosmological Argument, a variation of this argument, specifically states that the universe had a beginning, and since everything that begins to exist has a cause, the universe must have a cause, which is the Creator.

The Teleological Argument (Argument from Design): This argument suggests that the complexity, order, and purpose observed in the natural world imply the existence of an intelligent Designer. The fine-tuning of the universe's physical constants, the intricacy of biological systems, and the emergence of consciousness are often cited as evidence for a Creator.

The Moral Argument: This argument posits that the existence of objective moral values and duties implies the existence of a moral lawgiver, which is identified as the Creator or God. Without a transcendent source, it is argued that moral values would be subjective and arbitrary.



The Argument from Contingency: This argument states that everything in the universe is contingent, meaning it depends on something else for its existence. Since there cannot be an infinite chain of contingent causes, there must be a necessary being that is the ultimate cause of everything else. This necessary being is identified as the Creator or God.


Some people still look for evidence ams instead of humbling themselves, they become proud and say they are intelligent

The above are not based on religion right? From AI

FxMasterz:


All I want the Atheists to know is that Someone higher than man set the moral laws that are universally accepted by man. Laws are enacted and promulgated. They're never self existing.

This alone is a strong argument against Atheism.

This is also further strengthened by the fact that, the entire universe, not just man, operates according to set laws and rules. Scientists discovered those laws. They didn't set them. Man didn't set the laws of the universe. Someone higher than man did.

Your point is very logical but i did not agree at all with the highlighted
What has science got to do with moral laws or morality
It is built in
It is like a inner guide
Just as it is wrong to say science discovered love and hate, hunger and thirst.
Moral laws guide a person or community

Steep:
Are you saying your well being depends on the society? Society determines what is right and wrong for you?
What do you mean by society? A collection of atoms arranged into structure by mindless cosmic process meaning morality is determined by atoms at the end of the day.

1. If your definition of society is "a collection of atoms arranged into structure by mindless cosmic process", then i don't know what to say to you anymore.

2. I never said society determines what is right and wrong. I've repeatedly said that human well being is the thing that is intrinsically linked to morality.. not society.

It does not make any sense, meaning there is no free will, nothing is wrong or right at the end of the day just what propagate the human society, murder, rape, stealing lying can be all right when they profit society which itself is nothing but a complex structure of mindless atoms.

I've given up on explaining this to you. You choose to intentionally ignore what I'm saying to rehash the same narrative. I don't know how else to proceed with you

Aemmyjah:


The Cosmological Argument: This argument posits that everything in the universe has a cause, and since the universe itself must have a cause, there must be a First Cause or an Uncaused Cause, which is identified as the Creator or God. The Kalam Cosmological Argument, a variation of this argument, specifically states that the universe had a beginning, and since everything that begins to exist has a cause, the universe must have a cause, which is the Creator.

The Teleological Argument (Argument from Design): This argument suggests that the complexity, order, and purpose observed in the natural world imply the existence of an intelligent Designer. The fine-tuning of the universe's physical constants, the intricacy of biological systems, and the emergence of consciousness are often cited as evidence for a Creator.

The Moral Argument: This argument posits that the existence of objective moral values and duties implies the existence of a moral lawgiver, which is identified as the Creator or God. Without a transcendent source, it is argued that moral values would be subjective and arbitrary.



The Argument from Contingency: This argument states that everything in the universe is contingent, meaning it depends on something else for its existence. Since there cannot be an infinite chain of contingent causes, there must be a necessary being that is the ultimate cause of everything else. This necessary being is identified as the Creator or God.


Some people still look for evidence ams instead of humbling themselves, they become proud and say they are intelligent

The above are not based on religion right? From AI

Congratulations to the AI. I don't know if you felt mentioning that would add credibility to your argument, but okay.

I'm not arguing for or against the existence of God. All I'm asking is for the person who believes in god A to prove that their specific god, and no one else, created the universe, and is hence the source of the moral laws, if any, that govern it.

MaxInDHouse:


Insincerity is killing you!

Oh no.. it hurts.. ah insincerity.. now i am dead.

No king can be happy when his subjects aren't living peacefully among themselves.

Not what i asked.

The one and only true God should ensure that peace reigns among His own worshipers {Isaiah 2:2-4; Micah 4:1-3} even though they're speaking different languages they will have understanding among themselves! Zephaniah 3:9

Not a prerequisite for being a king

But false Kings will not bother when those who supposed to be their subjects are killing one another! Revelation 6:3-4

Again.. not a prerequisite

WHY? Because they have no prospect for subjects that aren't their own.
So there are many unseen supernatural beings presenting themselves to humans as God {1Corinthians 8:5} since they have nothing to offer their worshipers are confused and in the face of politics and racism they will raise weapons to kill one another whereas the true God will settle all disparities among His own worshipers {Isaiah 2:4} using His active force not military might {Zechariah 4:6} to unite them as ONE! John 17:22

Refer to points above

I have challenged you several times to request worshipers of those Gods you're saying to come and prove how real is their God but you always dodge facts!

I've been requesting worshippers of all gods should prove theirs. You included. I'm still yet to see any proof

Aemmyjah:


Your point is very logical but i did not agree at all with the highlighted
What has science got to do with moral laws or morality
It is built in
It is like a inner guide
Just as it is wrong to say science discovered love and hate, hunger and thirst.
Moral laws guide a person or community

Please read my post again. I spoke about science in relation to the scientific laws and rules guiding our physical universe in my second paragraph. The first paragraph referred only to moral laws but the second paragraph does not.

FxMasterz:


Please read my post again. I spoke about science in relation to the scientific laws and rules guiding our physical universe in my second paragraph. The first paragraph referred only to moral laws but the second paragraph does not.

Oh
My bad
U did not mention scientific laws

Don't mind this atheist
They don't want tk believe in a Creator ao they can pursue their selfish desires and not feel accountable to God
Just as a child delights to do all sorts of nonsense when the parents are far away
Where does it leave them? No guide, nk purpose, no future, no hope. Animal living

Wilgrea7:


This thread is about morality, not the existence of god. The reason i asked you to prove god A or B, is because it would help us define the arbiter of the alleged objective moral laws you believe exist.

The thread is about morality and targeted to atheists who say there's no God.

I can't prove God A or B until we first both agree that at least a God exists. This is the right order.

My point is that there are moral laws as well as laws guiding the universe in all its operations. Man discovered those laws, he didn't set them. Someone higher than man did. Laws don't enact or promulgate themselves.

Wilgrea7:

Not a prerequisite for being a king

Please can anyone help this atheist to know that there's no sense in having a king who is incapable of making peace reign in his domain?

Aemmyjah:


Oh
My bad
U did not mention scientific laws

Don't mind this atheist
They don't want tk believe in a Creator ao they can pursue their selfish desires and not feel accountable to God
Just as a child delights to do all sorts of nonsense when the parents are far away
Where does it leave them? No guide, nk purpose, no future, no hope. Animal living

Oh, I mentioned that our universe operates according to certain rules and laws. I suppose everyone would understand that my reference was to scientific laws.

And you're very correct. When you present Atheists with strong arguments against their viewpoints, they start to dribble around the point, setting baits to subtly divert the discussion into their
individual areass of strength. Their atheistically induced notions of God is weak because it is based on science which stands on ever shifting grounds. Just one new discovery could make science review a lot of its positions today. Anyone who does not have total, infinite and absolute knowledge cannot make a bold statement that there's no God. The Atheist himself knows that he's deceiving himself.

Wilgrea7:


This thread is about morality, not the existence of god. The reason i asked you to prove god A or B, is because it would help us define the arbiter of the alleged objective moral laws you believe exist.

The thread is not just about morality but the existent of moral laws which were not created by man. I posit that Someone higher than man made those laws.

FxMasterz:


The thread is about morality and targeted to atheists who say there's no God.

I can't prove God A or B until we first both agree that at least a God exists. This is the right order.

My point is that there are moral laws as well as laws guiding the universe in all its operations. Man discovered those laws, he didn't set them. Someone higher than man did. Laws don't enact or promulgate themselves.

I've explained in the past that the existence of a god does not solve the moral problem. I created an entire thread on it.

But okay, for the sake of this discussion, i will agree that a god exists.. so please go ahead to the secondary stage.

Prove god A or B

budaatum:

This is so not true. Just as you would not say please and thank you if your parents never taught you to, so too would you not learn not to lie and cheat and steal if no one taught you not to.

Please and thank you are not the moral laws where discussing here.

You and I know that universally accepted moral laws exist. The universe itself operates on some scientific laws which were not set by man. Someone higher than man set them.

Those universally accepted moral laws and the scientific laws that govern our universe are pointers to the existent of a God.

Wilgrea7:


I've explained in the past that the existence of a god does not solve the moral problem. I created an entire thread on it.

But okay, for the sake of this discussion, i will agree that a god exists.. so please go ahead to the secondary stage.

Prove god A or B

We're not talking about the moral problem. The existence of a government, presidents, judges as well as criminal laws don't solve the crime problems. But the existent of the laws themselves prove that someone higher than the criminal exists.

The secondary stage is not what we would discuss just because you're agreeing for the sake of this discussion. It's better discussed with someone who strongly accepts the existent of a God but is unsure of which God is the true God. I don't see you at this stage yet.

Maynmann:

Why not Gods exist?

Maynman, I have had encounters with you in which I have every cause to conclude that you do not engage in mature, intelligent and clean discussions. Your mantra is to cause unnecessary provocation using vulgarity and abusive languages. I do not have the time for such.

FxMasterz:


Maynman, I have had encounters with you in which I have every cause to conclude that you do not engage in mature, intelligent and clean discussions. Your mantra is to cause unnecessary provocation using vulgarity and abusive languages. I do not have the time for such.

I don’t start the insults, i don’t like it when people can’t take what they dish out.

Imagine calling me son of one character in your storybook but if i also do the same na problem.

Maynmann:

I don’t start the insults, i don’t like it when people can’t take what they dish out.

Imagine calling me son of one character in your storybook but if i also do the same na problem.

I have always been cautious in all my discourse on this forum. I respect myself and therefore respect everyone I have dealings with. But on several occasions, you've abused me for no just reasons. And I've decided to let you be.

FxMasterz:


I have always been cautious in all my discourse on this forum. I respect myself and therefore respect everyone I have dealings with. But on several occasions, you've abused me for no just reasons. And I've decided to let you be.

If you didn’t abuse me first, I wouldn’t have abused you.

Maynmann:

If you didn’t abuse me first, I wouldn’t have abused you.

You can go through all my mentions with you. Even when you abuse me, I don't immediately react until it gets to a point where I can't take it anymore.

FxMasterz:


You can go through all my mentions with you. Even when you abuse me, I don't immediately react until it gets to a point where I can't take it anymore.

You can also go through all my mentions with you, i have no reason to abuse you unless you start it.
I deal with knowledge not beliefs.

Maynmann:

Why not Gods exist?

Anyway, I've made my grieveances known to you. For the sake of courtesy, let me respond.

Whether a God or Gods. The most important thing here is that Someone or Some entities higher than man set the moral laws that are universally accepted by man to judge between right and wrong.

Maynmann:

You can also go through all my mentions with you, i have no reason to abuse you unless you start it.
I deal with knowledge not beliefs.

You'll be the first to call your opponent dullard, illiterate, etc. Even when he has never insulted you. Everyone on this forum knows that. The last time, you were even insulting my elders simply because I asked you to ask elders around about a widely publicised incident in Russia that happened in 1992 which obviously you knew nothing about.

FxMasterz:


Anyway, I've made my grieveances known to you. For the sake of courtesy, let me respond.

Whether a God or Gods. The most important thing here is that Someone or Some entities higher than man set the moral laws that are universally accepted by man to judge between right and wrong.

What are the moral laws that are universally accepted.

FxMasterz:


You'll be the first to call your opponent dullard, illiterate, etc. Even when he has never insulted you. Everyone on this forum knows that. The last time, you were even insulting my elders simply because I asked you to ask elders around about a widely publicised incident in Russia that happened in 1992 which obviously you knew nothing about.

I say it again, if you didn’t start the insult i wouldn’t insult you, take what you dish out.

If it was widely publicized incident in Russia, it should be online.
Why are ALL your stories no where to be found online.

Maynmann:

What are the moral laws that are universally accepted.

You know them.

Even kids of 3yrs know that some things aren't right to be done. The more the reason why they'll love to do them in your absence.

That universally accepted moral laws exist isn't something to argue about.

FxMasterz:


You know them.

Even kids of 3yrs know that some things aren't right to be done. The more the reason why they'll love to do them in your absence.

That universally accepted moral laws exist isn't something to argue about.

Those 3 year old kids were taught that, if they lived in other times or other cultures they will be taught another thing.
When you reward and punish someone for something what do you think will happen?

So tell me the universally accepted laws.