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

[OldTrees]

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?

The Truth, regardless of our lack of knowledge, determines who was correct.

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.

My claim in this subsection is that if God's whim determines what is moral then God is only moral by definition and not by choice. Being moral by definition does not seem like something relevant to me. Red is Red by definition. 1 is 1 by definition. These are redundant claims.

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?

Let me be more formal to explain
Premise1) Assume that God dictates only that which is moral.
Premise2) Either God dictates something because it is moral OR Something is moral because God dictated it. (Which way does causality point? You believe it points to the 2nd of these options I think.)

[Vindo]

Think about it this way. You believe in a big bang, and you say that  no matter can come by supernatural forces. If you say that the big bang created everything, where did the big bang come from? If there's a big bang, there has to be something to go bang.

Secondly, millions of years is not possible. Salt grows in the oceans every day. If the earth really was millions of years, we could literally walk across the ocean.

And last, do you know how complex life is? Only 20 amino acids are used in life, and there are a lot of amino acids. Only the left-handed amino acids are used in life, none of the right-handed ones. There are left and right-handed amino acids. And another thing is that you have to have all of the amino acids in exact order.

Do you REALLY believe that our bodies could be made by chance?

Just found a very big fail in your argument, Evolution has NOTHING to do with the Big Bang.  Evolution is what happens after the universe is created.

Did you know that fossils actually have links to show our common ancestry? The missing link is a myth. The links are all there to see in the fossil record have a look yourself.

If you don't believe in Evolution then how do you explain that women who were born in high altitude areas produce a placenta earlier in pregnancy to allow blood to reach the foetus before it dies?

It's also possible that creatures in the sea consume the salt, also do you know how much salt is needed in a mass of water as big as the worlds oceans to hold a person up? I don't, but we could be getting closer every few thousand years for all we know.

I love what you say about the big bang. Don't most religions believe that a God created the universe, that obviously bring up the question of 'who made God?'. To which the standard reply is 'God was always there.' Fair enough. But what amazes me is that you've never known of anything to have just been 'always there' yet as soon as anything scientific suggests something that we haven't seen yet the common complaint is "well have you ever seen that happen? Have you got any proof this has happened before?" No we haven't because it's a pattern that suggests it will happen in the future.

[BluePriest]

Considering vindos reply is filled with just as many misunderstandings and fail arguments as the TC, I think Ill just continue my discussion.

The Truth, regardless of our lack of knowledge, determines who was correct.

and what is the truth then? how are we suppose to know the truth? What if my "truth" that I arrive at is different than your "truth"? whos truth is correct?

My claim in this subsection is that if God's whim determines what is moral then God is only moral by definition and not by choice. Being moral by definition does not seem like something relevant to me. Red is Red by definition. 1 is 1 by definition. These are redundant claims.

God is Good. That is because he follows morality. God is omniscience so he knows what morality is. Onto the next point in the matter that I am assuming you would bring up. That does not mean that God can not change what morality is. God is omnipotent. he can change anything he wishes. Being able to do something and actually doing it are 2 different things.

I believe that also references your final question as well.

[OldTrees]

The Truth, regardless of our lack of knowledge, determines who was correct.

and what is the truth then? how are we suppose to know the truth? What if my "truth" that I arrive at is different than your "truth"? whos truth is correct?

Something I seem to not have communicated properly. If both you and me started to work on a very complex math problem above our understanding we probably would get different answers and they probably would both be incorrect. My "truth" (aka my fallacious and incorrect opinion) does not have any effect on the correct answer (Which may be unknowable). How do we attempt to learn the unknowable? I don't know but I believe we have a duty to try (and most likely fail).

My claim in this subsection is that if God's whim determines what is moral then God is only moral by definition and not by choice. Being moral by definition does not seem like something relevant to me. Red is Red by definition. 1 is 1 by definition. These are redundant claims.

God is Good. That is because he follows morality. God is omniscience so he knows what morality is. Onto the next point in the matter that I am assuming you would bring up. That does not mean that God can not change what morality is. God is omnipotent. he can change anything he wishes. Being able to do something and actually doing it are 2 different things.

So, if I understand
1) God is not the source of what is and is not moral
2) God understands the source
3) God obeys the source
4) God has the power but not the incentive to change the answer
Aka your answer is God is indeed a middleman however a middleman that is more reliable than other methods?

Good answer.
This still has the problem that God is Good is not as significant (If God wanted to do what is currently immoral he could/would change it to be moral. However God never changes his mind.) but whether God is Good means anything is mostly irrelevant to this answer.

[LongDono]

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.

This is funny I admit.
Tell me this "judgement day" has also been called armageddon correct? Please look up and define armageddon. 2012 has the potential to become the biggest magic trick in history. If a "new begining" really dose start it is not because of the wrath of god itself.
Also I find it funny that you say you are positive right after talking about judgement day when god will have millions of people die or something like that.
Also you should not force what you think on others, and yes you are due to the tone and choice of words you choose. Maybe if you scream loud enough and kick up enough dirt someone might believe you out of your passion alone. It worked for glen beck. 

[BluePriest]

Seems another person who cant make any real arguments joins the discussion. Anyways, onto the discussion.

The Truth, regardless of our lack of knowledge, determines who was correct.

and what is the truth then? how are we suppose to know the truth? What if my "truth" that I arrive at is different than your "truth"? whos truth is correct?

Something I seem to not have communicated properly. If both you and me started to work on a very complex math problem above our understanding we probably would get different answers and they probably would both be incorrect. My "truth" (aka my fallacious and incorrect opinion) does not have any effect on the correct answer (Which may be unknowable). How do we attempt to learn the unknowable? I don't know but I believe we have a duty to try (and most likely fail).

Thats why we google it! Google knows everything! lol

[OJPaper]

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.

[Kamietsu]

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.

+1 karma for that gif. Nathan Fillion <3

[LongDono]

Seems another person who cant make any real arguments joins the discussion. Anyways, onto the discussion.

The Truth, regardless of our lack of knowledge, determines who was correct.

and what is the truth then? how are we suppose to know the truth? What if my "truth" that I arrive at is different than your "truth"? whos truth is correct?

Something I seem to not have communicated properly. If both you and me started to work on a very complex math problem above our understanding we probably would get different answers and they probably would both be incorrect. My "truth" (aka my fallacious and incorrect opinion) does not have any effect on the correct answer (Which may be unknowable). How do we attempt to learn the unknowable? I don't know but I believe we have a duty to try (and most likely fail).

Thats why we google it! Google knows everything! lol

"Can't" and "not willing to waste my time" are 2 different things.
Just because you seem like fun I guess I can play devils advocate and debate you, though it seems too early in the day for me.  ( sorry about mis spelling, ect... early in the day... ) )
Math problems are just 1 example, how about right and wrong? Hard to define sometimes right? That is because we seem to think right and wrong are opinions and yet we teach people not to do wrong. That brings me to truth!
Truth is man made just like right and wrong so that means there is no "truth" but only what seems real to each person on an indvidual level. If it is unknown to man it can not be the truth until man learns of it. God is truth to some, while not truth to others, yet no one can prove god but also some know of him/her/it and to them it is truth and proof enough.
What some call luck some call an act of god, but neither can be proven no matter how hard we try so is it possible to say what the truth is?
( remember I am just playing devils advocate here. )

[OldTrees]

The Truth, regardless of our lack of knowledge, determines who was correct.

and what is the truth then? how are we suppose to know the truth? What if my "truth" that I arrive at is different than your "truth"? whos truth is correct?

Something I seem to not have communicated properly. If both you and me started to work on a very complex math problem above our understanding we probably would get different answers and they probably would both be incorrect. My "truth" (aka my fallacious and incorrect opinion) does not have any effect on the correct answer (Which may be unknowable). How do we attempt to learn the unknowable? I don't know but I believe we have a duty to try (and most likely fail).

Math problems are just 1 example, how about right and wrong? Hard to define sometimes right? That is because we seem to think right and wrong are opinions and yet we teach people not to do wrong. That brings me to truth!
Truth is man made just like right and wrong so that means there is no "truth" but only what seems real to each person on an indvidual level. If it is unknown to man it can not be the truth until man learns of it. God is truth to some, while not truth to others, yet no one can prove god but also some know of him/her/it and to them it is truth and proof enough.
What some call luck some call an act of god, but neither can be proven no matter how hard we try so is it possible to say what the truth is?
( remember I am just playing devils advocate here. )

Is your claim that reality is created by opinion? Ie if we all were of the opinion that we could fly then gravity would not affect us?

I believe that there exist facts about reality. I believe people have opinions about reality. I believe that when these correlate many would call that knowledge. When I refer to truth I am referring to the facts not the opinions or the knowledge. Math (IMO) was true before it was derived.

We often act upon our opinions of right and wrong because they dictate how we ought to act. The wise note that our opinions about facts are not correct unless they correlate with those facts.

[Daxx]

Math (IMO) was true before it was derived.

Though I'm not a mathematician, isn't maths just a logical construct derived from our own observations about reality? It doesn't seem like it represents a platonic form extant as part of the universe.

[OldTrees]

Math (IMO) was true before it was derived.

Though I'm not a mathematician, isn't maths just a logical construct derived from our own observations about reality? It doesn't seem like it represents a platonic form extant as part of the universe.

This is debated
Mathematical Platonism vs. Mathematical Formalism

I fall toward the Platonism camp
"There are true things we cannot prove. That doesn't make them not true."