All of you evolutionists are stupid when it comes to logic.

[Antiderivative]

I love the Prince gif.  It reminds me of a time when I macked on this ginger (actually a day walker...but she was beautiful).  However, she had a huge boyfriend.

She liked me and Prince, but her boyfriend buried me into a locker and that ended that...well, it didn't.  I actually called her and told her about it....blah, blah, blah.....

Then I macked on a brunette and got the girl.


Yes, I am now trolling this thread since it is worth it. 

[LongDono]

@ Antiderivative: This thread was not worth it from the start. The ops own talking points can be used against him/her/it. It's like taking candy from a baby but easier.

[Destiny]

You'll all see on Judgement day. If you still want to at least listen to what these guys have to say, please do it. Go to answersingenesis.com. I'm positive that they will convince you, even though I'm not.

[thatnewguy]

judgement day the day of 2012 i shall wait, just like everyone waited for everything to end in 2000 too.

[Nepycros]

Evolution, Theology, all that other stuff. I say if there is a God, then clearly He'd adhere to the rules of the universe, if He indeed did create it. Why would He create a laws of physics, if the beginning didn't even make sense to most people? This is just to assume He exists.

[implosion]

You'll all see on Judgement day. If you still want to at least listen to what these guys have to say, please do it. Go to answersingenesis.com. I'm positive that they will convince you, even though I'm not.

I will if you google pretty much any atheist site and look at their arguments, or alternatively look at youtube videos like those of QualiaSoup (who I think I actually learned about from someone on this site). I'm positive that they won't convince you, even though I'm just as positive that I never will. Also note that I really don't give a damn if they convince you, I'm just joining the trollage.

[OldTrees]

Why does the existence/nonexistence of a God(s) matter?

I would argue that the existence/nonexistence of a God(s) is irrelevant to the pursuit of moral action.

Let us assume a God exists.
Either something is moral because God says it is moral so or God says it is moral because it is moral.

If something is moral because God says it is moral, then does the claim "God is good" have any relevance?
Any being that dictates morality is unable to act in an immoral way. This further forces God to not be omnipotent if they dictate morality because they are unable to act in an immoral way. So if God dictates morality then God is neither omnipotent nor all Good.

If God says something is moral because it is moral, then why keep a middleman? Why not seek and understand why things are moral or immoral so that you can better pursue moral action than by instruction alone?

In conclusion:
If God(s) exist and dictate morality then they are neither omnipotent nor all good.
If God(s) exist and do not dictate morality then they are an obstruction/crutch that impedes proper pursuit of moral action.
Of course if God(s) doesn't exist then God(s) is not a valid method of pursuing moral action.

[BluePriest]

I dont know why people continue to post in this topic... its an obvious troll attempt.

[OldTrees]

I find the opportunity to try to convince non hostile trolls educational.

The ultimate test of persuasion is convincing a person who is not open to changing their mind. If a valid argument succeeds then the argument is a great one. Although the lesson I am hoping to learn by this is how presentation of ideas affects the troll's perception of them.

While most trolls are malicious, this one seems to simply be trying to gauge whether the response they predicted matches the actual response. (However I am an optimist.)

@BP I wonder, what is your response to the Euthyphro dilemma?

[BluePriest]

A very well. Ill give you my take on it.

Why does the existence/nonexistence of a God(s) matter?

I would argue that the existence/nonexistence of a God(s) is irrelevant to the pursuit of moral action.

The existence of God matters for much more than simply moral reasons.

If something is moral because God says it is moral, then does the claim "God is good" have any relevance?

Yes it does.  let us take the 10 commandments for the prime example. 7 of them are good  generally accepted moral standards. If people follow those 7 (the remaining 3 are Keep the sabbath day holy, no other Gods, and Using the lords name in vain) then people would consider them moral regardless of religious affiliation. The same applies to God.

Any being that dictates morality is unable to act in an immoral way. This further forces God to not be omnipotent if they dictate morality because they are unable to act in an immoral way. So if God dictates morality then God is neither omnipotent nor all Good.

Dictating something, and following it are 2 different things. You shouldnt make the assumption that just because something is dictated, the dictator follows it. The dictator can do whatever he wants for he has no one to answer to. In the same way, God does not have to follow the morals he sets in place for us. He chooses to because he is good, however, he could easily not follow them.

If God says something is moral because it is moral, then why keep a middleman? Why not seek and understand why things are moral or immoral so that you can better pursue moral action than by instruction alone?

What is the middleman that you are referring to here?

[OldTrees]

Why does the existence/nonexistence of a God(s) matter?

I would argue that the existence/nonexistence of a God(s) is irrelevant to the pursuit of moral action.

The existence of God matters for much more than simply moral reasons.

My claim is that not that the existence doesn't matter but rather it doesn't matter for the pursuit of moral action.

If something is moral because God says it is moral, then does the claim "God is good" have any relevance?

Yes it does.  let us take the 10 commandments for the prime example. 7 of them are good  generally accepted moral standards. If people follow those 7 (the remaining 3 are Keep the sabbath day holy, no other Gods, and Using the lords name in vain) then people would consider them moral regardless of religious affiliation. The same applies to God.

Small nitpick: Our opinions of what is moral or not do not cause it to be moral or not. (Except under Moral Relativism)

Any being that dictates morality is unable to act in an immoral way. This further forces God to not be omnipotent if they dictate morality because they are unable to act in an immoral way. So if God dictates morality then God is neither omnipotent nor all Good.

Dictating something, and following it are 2 different things. You shouldnt make the assumption that just because something is dictated, the dictator follows it. The dictator can do whatever he wants for he has no one to answer to. In the same way, God does not have to follow the morals he sets in place for us. He chooses to because he is good, however, he could easily not follow them.

You might not understand what I meant for something to be moral because God dictates it instead of dictated because it is moral. Imagine a being that can change the rules of the game when it wants to. If it wants to do something then the rules change to allow it. That is why I claim that "God is Good" becomes redundant if God's whim is the origin of whether something is moral or not.

If God says something is moral because it is moral, then why keep a middleman? Why not seek and understand why things are moral or immoral so that you can better pursue moral action than by instruction alone?

What is the middleman that you are referring to here?

This is based on the other of the two possibilities. If God's whim does not determine what is moral then what is moral determines what God dictates. Under this interpretation God is the middleman between you and truth.

[BluePriest]

My claim is that not that the existence doesn't matter but rather it doesn't matter for the pursuit of moral action.

Morality requires something to be based off of. If you and I disagree on a moral issue, then whos to say who is right?

You might not understand what I meant for something to be moral because God dictates it instead of dictated because it is moral. Imagine a being that can change the rules of the game when it wants to. If it wants to do something then the rules change to allow it. That is why I claim that "God is Good" becomes redundant if God's whim is the origin of whether something is moral or not.

I dont consider this relevant, because I do no believe it to be the case. I believe it would be relevant if I thought it was what God did, however, I don't. As scripture states, God is unchanging.
Quoted from a website, that quotes the bible

Malachi 3:6 declares, “I the LORD do not change. So you, O descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed.” Similarly, James 1:17 tells us, “Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.” The meaning of Numbers 23:19 could not be more clear: “God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should change His mind. Does He speak and then not act? Does He promise and not fulfill?” No, God does not change His mind.

This is based on the other of the two possibilities. If God's whim does not determine what is moral then what is moral determines what God dictates. Under this interpretation God is the middleman between you and truth.

2 people can examine 2 situations that are the same and arrive at different conclusions. This once again goes back to if people disagree, who is to say which of is is the moral one?