Is it entirely unnecessary and insulting to inform people...

[William]

Is it entirely unnecessary and insulting to inform people...That they are evil in the sight of GOD and bound for hell?

As a human being, how is such theology acceptable and a good and reasonable thing to be stating or even implying of others, on a debate forum or even in day to day life?

Are people right to be able to take a stand against such theology and call it out for being dated, dark, based upon information from dark ages, based in ignorance and evil of intent?

What gives individuals the right to say such things about others?

Is it a form of abuse?

Should others have to take that kind of abuse about their persons without protesting it?

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 140 by For_The_Kingdom]

No way around it, chaos/disorder created organized structure (specified complexity), which is an oxymoron and defies observation, experiment, and prediction (science).

Gravity created the organised structures we observe when we look out into the universe. Or are all those stars and galaxies just magical lights in the sky that God created for signs and wonders?

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 140 by For_The_Kingdom]

Now, when you go to a restaurant..do you have evidence against the cook poisoning your food? No. Do you have any evidence either way? No.

Food has been shown to exist. Billions of meals are made every day without poison being added to them If we go to a restaurant and order food we trust that it will be safe to eat based on the probabilities produced by past history.

When it comes to gods, the case is quite different. Gods have not been shown to exist. There have been thousands of them invented and discarded. There are still many that are believed in and all have different natures and expectations. None of them has ever demonstrated their existence or that they interact with the world in any way. To accept any one of them is based purely on faith, which is not the same as the trust you have when you eat at a restaurant.

People don't choose to believe in God for fear of the consequences of not believing. Belief is inculcated. Fear of the consequences of not believing is what acts to prevent discarding belief.

[Bust Nak]

No; more like disagreeing with you on the subject and moving along.

You don't disagree with me by saying "it is all subjective, right?" That's called agreeing with me. And the moving along part leaves the challenge unanswered as a result.

I don't recall what was being discussed here.

You were appealing to moral subjectivism, which is inconsistent with your stance as an objectivist.

Then you pick theism/intelligent design!!!

Why wouldn't I when the I am charged with generating items that requires intelligent design? The question is why you would pick theism/intelligent design for random splashes of paint.

Assuming Mona Lisa was an actual human being, then Mona Lisa came from what was an initial "explosion" at the beginning of time.

Why would I assume that, when an actual human being is closer to an exploded factory than a painting?

No way around it, chaos/disorder created organized structure (specified complexity), which is an oxymoron and defies observation, experiment, and prediction (science).

And yet here we are with trivial scientific example of organized structure in the form of aurora borealis, created by "chaos/disorder" as you call it. Consider this a way round your so called "no way around oxymoron."

Yeah, but "it is impossible for specified complexity to exist in patterns displayed by configurations formed by unguided processes."

So Dembski kept insisting, I present to you aurora borealis as a counter-example, demonstrating that Dembski is incorrect and a natural unguided process can and does exhibit specified complexity.

Like I said earlier, I merely disagreed with you and kept it moving.

The record shows that you were agreeing with me on subjectivism.

If you think things like rape, and murder are subjectively wrong, then I don't know what to tell you.

After all, it is a naturalistic view and you are true to your view.

Well, you can tell me explicitly that you have no argument against my view and the best you can do is to point out that you disagree.

However, if you believe that morality is in fact objective (like myself), and things like rape and murder is wrong, then you can't logically hold this belief without an objective lawgiver..which is my point.

That goes back to the original challenge: justify human sacrifice as some objectively goodness.

What is appropriate is subjective. The double standard is simple; you said above that "there is no God". Do you have evidence against God (Christian God)? ... . Are you convinced by the presented evidence for God?

Insert the probelm of evil here.

Now, when you go to a restaurant..do you have evidence against the cook poisoning your food? ... Do you have any evidence either way?

Why yes, I do. Clearly. Hence the right amount of "faith." If it is indeed approprate to call that faith given it's backed by evidence. There is no double standard here. The same rule of thumb applied consistently in different scenarios.

[For_The_Kingdom]

You don't disagree with me by saying "it is all subjective, right?" That's called agreeing with me.

I do disagree with you, as I stated before, I believe in objective morality.

And the moving along part leaves the challenge unanswered as a result.

This is one area of which I am just fine with agreeing/disagreeing and moving along.

You were appealing to moral subjectivism, which is inconsistent with your stance as an objectivist.

But I wasn't appealing to moral subjectivism. Or do you not comprehend what I meant? I said "its all subjective, right"...meaning "why does it matter, because according to you, it is all subjective, right?"

I thought I made that point clear, but apparently not clear enough.

Why wouldn't I when the I am charged with generating items that requires intelligent design?

That's the point, if the painting of the woman requires intelligent design (which you readily admit), then how much more does the woman of whom the painting is of, require intelligent design.

Or will you continue being inconsistent with your logic?

The question is why you would pick theism/intelligent design for random splashes of paint.

I didn't.

Why would I assume that, when an actual human being is closer to an exploded factory than a painting?

Makes no sense.

And yet here we are with trivial scientific example of organized structure in the form of aurora borealis, created by "chaos/disorder" as you call it. Consider this a way round your so called "no way around oxymoron."

False. What does "organized" mean?

Organized: arranged in a systematic way, especially on a large scale.

Ok, so what does "systematic" mean?

Systematic: done or acting according to a fixed plan or system; methodical.

Hmm..arranged in a systematic way according to a fixed plan or system..

Was aurora borealis arranged in a systematic way according to a fixed plan or system? No, it wasn't.

Therefore, aurora borealis is not an example of specified complexity.

The record shows that you were agreeing with me on subjectivism.

See above.

Well, you can tell me explicitly that you have no argument against my view and the best you can do is to point out that you disagree.

You also have no argument against my view and the best YOU can do is disagree.

My aim was never argue against moral subjectivity..but rather, it was to demonstrate that if you believe in moral objectivity, then you cant logically hold this view unless you also believe in an objective lawgiver, which you obviously don't.

Therefore, I call it a stalemate..which is probably the best situation you will ever find yourself in a discussion with me.

So, just take the stalemate and consider yourself fortunate.

That goes back to the original challenge: justify human sacrifice as some objectively goodness.

I can't.

Insert the probelm of evil here.

Subjective. Your opinion is noted, though.

Why yes, I do. Clearly. Hence the right amount of "faith." If it is indeed approprate to call that faith given it's backed by evidence.

Ok, so what evidence do you have that the cook didn't poison your food?

There is no double standard here. The same rule of thumb applied consistently in different scenarios.

I disagree.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Food has been shown to exist. Billions of meals are made every day without poison being added to them If we go to a restaurant and order food we trust that it will be safe to eat based on the probabilities produced by past history.

Past history also shows that life can't come from nonlife either. See where I'm going?

When it comes to gods, the case is quite different. Gods have not been shown to exist. There have been thousands of them invented and discarded. There are still many that are believed in and all have different natures and expectations. None of them has ever demonstrated their existence or that they interact with the world in any way. To accept any one of them is based purely on faith

Reasonable faith*

[For_The_Kingdom]

Gravity created the organised structures we observe when we look out into the universe. Or are all those stars and galaxies just magical lights in the sky that God created for signs and wonders?

"Gravity exists, therefore, God doesn't exist". That's what I got out of it.

[Bust Nak]

I do disagree with you, as I stated before, I believe in objective morality.

Hence the charge of being inconsistent, you agree and disagree with me on the same topic.

This is one area of which I am just fine with agreeing/disagreeing and moving along.

Well, it's up to you to meet the challenge or not.

But I wasn't appealing to moral subjectivism. Or do you not comprehend what I meant? I said "its all subjective, right"...meaning "why does it matter, because according to you, it is all subjective, right?"

That's called appealing to subjectivism. It matters because you are an objectivist and cannot appeal to subjectivism.

That's the point, if the painting of the woman requires intelligent design (which you readily admit), then how much more does the woman of whom the painting is of, require intelligent design.

Not a lot as it turns out. All it took was natural unguided process.

I didn't.

Okay, then let me ask, would you?

Makes no sense.

Makes more sense the equating a woman with a painting.

False. What does "organized" mean?

...

Was aurora borealis arranged in a systematic way according to a fixed plan or system?

Why yes they are: the system in question being the emissions of photons from ionized atoms. So let me ask you again, what made you think aurora borealis is not an example of specified complexity?

You also have no argument against my view and the best YOU can do is disagree.

What is this view are you referring to here exactly? Last I check you didn't have a answer to my challenge.

My aim was never argue against moral subjectivity..but rather, it was to demonstrate that if you believe in moral objectivity, then you cant logically hold this view unless you also believe in an objective lawgiver, which you obviously don't.

That's a rather trivial and minor claim. I am happy to grant you that much.

Subjective.

Incorrect. Logic is not a matter of opinion and hence not subjective.

Ok, so what evidence do you have that the cook didn't poison your food?

The cook's track record of not poisoning anyone's food.

I disagree.

You think whether a standard is consistent or not is a matter of opinion for you to agree and disagree upon?

[For_The_Kingdom]

Hence the charge of being inconsistent, you agree and disagree with me on the same topic.

LOL. I clarified, and still wound up with this^. SMH.

Well, it's up to you to meet the challenge or not.

*sigh* SMH. I know my "SMH"s aint too popular on here...but sometimes, that's all I can do.

That's called appealing to subjectivism. It matters because you are an objectivist and cannot appeal to subjectivism.

Again; SMH. I explained it...but..^

Not a lot as it turns out. All it took was natural unguided process.

Inconsistent logic.

Okay, then let me ask, would you?

Would I what?

Makes more sense the equating a woman with a painting.

?

Why yes they are: the system in question being the emissions of photons from ionized atoms. So let me ask you again, what made you think aurora borealis is not an example of specified complexity?

I answered this; and your response was rather poor.

What is this view are you referring to here exactly? Last I check you didn't have a answer to my challenge.

I can't prove objective morality, so I was unable to answer your challenge.

That's a rather trivial and minor claim. I am happy to grant you that much.

Well..

Incorrect. Logic is not a matter of opinion and hence not subjective.

The problem of evil is nothing BUT subjective.

The cook's track record of not poisoning anyone's food.

Oh, so how do you know that 10 years ago, the cook didn't poison anyone's food?

You think whether a standard is consistent or not is a matter of opinion for you to agree and disagree upon?

Don't understand the question.

[Bust Nak]

LOL. I clarified, and still wound up with this^. SMH.

The problem wasn't a lack of clarity though, clarifying doesn't help. The problem is irrationality.

Inconsistent logic.

Incorrect. It is merely contradicts with your deeply held religious convictions.

Would I what?

Pick theism/intelligent design when tasked with making a random mess of paint.

?

Be more specific, what is the question you want to ask?

I answered this; and your response was rather poor.

You did answer it, but things have changed since then with me pointing out that Northern lights are the product of simple natural systems, which was the linchpin of your thesis aurora borealis doesn't count as an example "specified complexity." Care to update your answer in light of this?

I can't prove objective morality, so I was unable to answer your challenge.

And some how you want to claim stalemate?

The problem of evil is nothing BUT subjective.

Incorrect, it is simple logic.

Oh, so how do you know that 10 years ago, the cook didn't poison anyone's food?

He wouldn't have a job as a cook had he done that.

Don't understand the question.

Put it another way, how do you think you are advancing your position in this debate by pointing out that you disagree with me?

[For_The_Kingdom]

The problem wasn't a lack of clarity though, clarifying doesn't help. The problem is irrationality.

LOL.

Incorrect. It is merely contradicts with your deeply held religious convictions.

LOL. Hey, my LOL's also don't get much love on here..but if it is funny, it is funny.

Pick theism/intelligent design when tasked with making a random mess of paint.

Are you continually missing the point on purpose, or by accident?

You did answer it, but things have changed since then with me pointing out that Northern lights are the product of simple natural systems, which was the linchpin of your thesis aurora borealis doesn't count as an example "specified complexity." Care to update your answer in light of this?

Sure..you just said it, "simple natural systems"...yet, specified complexity and the organization that comes with it is the grand scheme of a "fixed plan"...as I pointed out to you...something of which has not been addressed as of yet.

And some how you want to claim stalemate?

Bro, do you have a problem comprehending what you read? It is a stalemate; not just because I can't prove objective morality is true (my view), but because you also can't prove that subjective morality is true (your view)...therefore, stalemate. No winner.

I thought I made that point abundantly clear.

Incorrect, it is simple logic.

Ok...here is a challenge for you...prove the problem of evil to be true without appealing to and presupposing your own subjective standard of morality.

I already know you can't logically do it, but we are gonna go ahead and let it play out, since you don't seem to want to let it go and move along, as I suggested.

He wouldn't have a job as a cook had he done that.

Oh ok..I guess the concept of "committing crime and not getting caught" doesn't exist.

Put it another way, how do you think you are advancing your position in this debate by pointing out that you disagree with me?

I acknowledge that I am not advancing my position in this debate by disagreeing with you?

Now what?