I did ask you to clarify your responses to lagtight; but I also presented an argument.

You've misinterpreted me so badly here I'm not sure how to respond to your arguments. Give me one.

1) Sans an objective moral law giver, objective morals cannot exist.
2) Objective morals do exist.
3) Therefore, an objective moral law giver exists.

and then... God is the best explanation for an objective moral law giver.

Your first premise is very questionable. As Felix has tried to convey, we do not require that a medical knowledge giver exist in order for objective medical knowledge to exist. We do not require an engineering principle giver to exist in order to recognize that there are objective engineering principles. Why should morality be different? Objective morality may exist, even if, much like medicine and engineering, our knowledge of it is imperfect and incomplete.

Your second is arguable, since what people see as moral has changed distinctly over time and has varied from society to society. We now think that encouraging a person to commit suicide would be an immoral act, for example. Hop in your time machine and go back to 16th century Japan, though, and ask someone living there and then what they think about encouraging suicide and you would probably get a completely different answer. Heck go back about 160 years in the USA and you would find all kinds of things that would be considered perfectly fine that we now find morally reprehensible. That is not to say those things were moral, but how do we know that those societies had it wrong and wr have it right? Those people were just as convinced of their morality as we are of ours. How do we know that what we do today will not be judged just as harshly by future societies?

Your conclusion certainly follows from the two premises, but your comment upon it most certainly does not; it is simply an assertion without any argument or evidence to back it up. Maybe Zeus is the most likely source of moral law. Maybe it is the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or invisible pink unicorns. Maybe it is Joe Pesci. Who knows? There is no evidence that ANY particular possibility is the supreme law giver. Why is the purported Christian God the obvious choice?

Other than that, your argument looks pretty good!

:-) this got an authentic lol out of me

Medical knowledge as well as engineering principles are significantly different than an objective moral code. Medical knowledge and engineering principles (in fact, all our natural laws) are descriptive -- they describe how the world works. On the other hand, an objective moral code is prescriptive -- it prescribes how we *should* act. The "should" part requires an objective code giver.

(who's Felix?)

Damn autocorrect; I was abbreviating fellagaga’s handle.

Descriptive vs proscriptive does not explain why one requires a law giver and the other does not. Utilitarianism, for example, is a principle that provides a perfectly objective moral code in any given situation without the necessity of a supernatural law giver. We can argue whether or not that principle results in morality as it is generally accepted, but in any given situation there is in fact an action that has the most benefit to people overall (or does the least harm). We may not know what that action is (just as we do not always know the right engineering principle or the right medical diagnosis), but there is an objective answer. There is no need for any lawful to have an objective moral standard.

Now, if I grant for the sake of argument that there is indeed an objective morality and that a lawgiver is needed for such an objective morality to exist, would you be willing to tackle the issue of why it is that the Christian God is the most likely source, rather than some other lawgiver?

Not yet; I'm interested in the argument so I want to see if I can defend premise 1 this way or if I need to concede and try another tack. I'm buried with work stuff rn and can't really put any thought into it atm.

Still buried but haven't forgotten about this. I'll have to concede prescriptive vs descriptive doesn't work to defend Premise 1 and I'll have to re-tack.

Hope you're running well.

Was that lightning strike today near the White House god doing more of his loving justice, or just nature? And how do you know the difference? Ask him in prayer?

I'll share my story (the brief version) -- I met a Christian online and I'm more confident that God exists due to having been given some insights from that person. Basically -- if God exists and is omniscient, there are some pretty interesting things that result from that idea.

Basically -- what if the following two things are true (assuming that God is both real and omniscient):

1. What if a person has proof of something which would imply the existence of God however....
2. God only allows this to happen to people who he knows (via omniscience) are trustworthy enough to possess it?

Since my account is brand new, there's no risk involved in sharing a random claim on the internet -- but I'm fairly confident I've seen enough with my own eyes to believe this is exactly what God does.

I'd like to ask for help from others in figuring out if there is a way for a person to share that evidence if an omnipotent entity "knows" they never would (such as a God).

I've spent an extremely long time on this and I think that the info can be shared but only if the context "protects" the "unbelievability" of the claim.

God doesn't "prove Himself" to anybody. We are saved by faith alone.

Read the story about Moses and the burning bush. If you go looking for God in the sincerity of your heart, He will make His presence known in your life.

The souls who need "proof" none will be given. These people lack faith and are full of pride.

thats good your faith is growing

God has already put signs in the world and continues to put more out there every day

1. Bible - read it

2. preaching

3. works He does through His people their vocations skills etc.

4. miracles

5. miraculous healings

6. works of mercy and love


if those "good" things like love are not enough to melt your heart and want to do good instead of evil then there is fear of God. He has made the world and the universe so vast to display His awesome powers so that people will feel humility through their sheer insignificance. that humility and desire for truth and doing the right thing is what God loves and conversely he hates pride and arrogance someone who has to know everything as if we are even capable

if good deeds and love nor fear of God are enough to cause someone to repent, there are always punishments

God tests your heart over and over again in your life big and small ways to see what your soul desires

those whose hearts seek to do evil and call it good justifying their hearts sinful desires they disbelieve God, or they question God, or they create their own religion and tell God to come worship them instead of the other way around, there are increasing annoyances, inconveniences, punishments and consequences, finally death and destruction to wake someone up

the damned soul is one who has persistently proven to God throughout their life that their heart eternally seeks to do evil whatever it wants regardless of consequences

I thought the doctrine was "saved by grace."

we have no grace to give all we can do is have faith and trust in THE LORD

THE LORD gives us grace

I have not read the final 2 sentences of your comment nor any other comments.

This statement I have quoted is 100% false. (no comment nor judgment on the last half of this quoted part)

TL;DR: "God doesn't "prove Himself" to anybody" is 100% false.

Assuredly I tell you that you are wrong and your belief is antithetical to all mainstream Christianity.

Please read the Bible. The only thing you can do is have faith. It is through your faith that you find God, and through the fruits of your faith that your faith may be justified.

Every soul is given faith in God to start out his or her life. Unbelief is willing rebellion against God because of one's own selfish desires and pride.

this is also total heresy

Matthew 5:14

God does not hide but rather it is the devil that calls for people to hide their sins that they may become comfortable in them. Sin hides itself. Evil practices imitation and deception.

Jesus Christ is the Light of the World

Which is it Jehovah-Jireh? Ask him. I can't imagine you not having the pat answer to this ... (or imagining that you do).

Hey Jehovah-Jireh!

Saying "Read the Bible!" has as much impact on me as my saying to you "Read Aesop's Fables!".
It's NOT proof of anything!
Similarly, writing statements like "Jesus Christ is the Light of the World" is just stupid.
It's just your OPINION!
There are a lot of "flat-earth-ers" out there who feel just as passionately as you do.

How would you react if I kept writing "satan rules!" or "god is dead!" or "Jesus saves but Moses invests!"?
Would any of that change your mind?

How about marshaling an argument based on objective facts and repeatable/verifiable experiments?
Oh wait... I guess that flies in the face of "faith" (which is just thinking something is true WITHOUT evidence).... which just brings us back to your opinions and subjective feelings!

There is a possibility that you are just trolling.... in fact... I hope you are!

BTW, Read "The Hitchhiker's Guide to The Galaxy"! (It really is awesome!)

Don't be coy. Don't all these same implications arise if the quantum fields house all knowledge. You are completely air mailing in the god at the beginning ... the very thing you are trying to demonstrate. If the set of all the knowledge about the universe and existence is held somewhere, that does nothing in any way, shape or form to imply the existence of the murderous, jealous, bigoted, superstitious, megalomaniac, fable-based god of the bible.

"If the universe is acting like a giant quantum supercomputer, and let's face it, it is ..." -- Physicist Seth Lloyd


I don't know what concluded that sentence or thought. Maybe I was clapping too loud to hear. Or maybe he got interrupted by some fool posing their magic God: "Poof ... and there is earth"; "Poof ... and there is man;" "Poof ... it's the magic guy (a guy of course, lol) behind curtain #3 poofing everything into existence while he worries incessantly about their sex life, what they wear, whether they worship him enough.

It seems to me the very fact that in the story the ultimate being demands worship is ridiculous ... and can only be the product of the mind of the inferior being imaging what he would want if he was in power. Hello. Get real. This is reality not a fable/myth.

This is just doctrine spieling lying. You somehow forgot about the little element of grace in your spiel ... and when it's pointed out you don't have the decency to say, "Whoops." But just came back with more spiel and misdirection over your epic mistake. Of course, conveniently, if we forget about grace and just believe, that's the eternal life ticket to streets of gold and such. What a cool religion this is.