You are your own master, there is no other.
So in a sense you are your own God, being there is nothing higher?
Which both assumes its true (I'm not) and applies your Christian worldview to it.
No it applies logic.
See above
It does assume levels of authority, which is common and established fact of life.
Burden of proof, your making the claim, you back it up.
You know it's fascinating that you don't ever appear to entertain the concept that you have to prove anything, yet everyone else does.
Thats quite convenient.
What a surprise, double standards.
Likewise.
You require no evidence that can be shown to be of any resonable standard for your faith, but demand the most exacting standard for anything that may counter it.
Rife hypocrisy.
In this case I am countering with your standard, not mine.
You require proof of everything, even that under common knowledge, as if there were no existing factors present in the world.
You set the standard, put aside your hypocrisy and meet it.
OK, I will ignore the question just as you did.
Does not matter, you have ignored the key requirement of the very argument you cited, that no evidence exists for either position, as soon as evidence exists for one it doesn't meet the standard.
Again thats your interpretation, and does not align with the acceptable approaches.
Big pile of utter bollocks that makes no sense at all.
And that is all that's needed to show that one has evidence and the other does.
No, you need to stop talking nonsense.
This is a good example that proves my point.
You claim I cannot comprehend proving a negative, and as usual you provide no evidence to substantiate your claim.
I provide clear, legitimate, and acceptable evidence to the contrary, and low and behold it's bullocks and nonsense.
Imagine that.
As I said, this clearly shows attempting to prove anything to you is an effort in futility.
Regardless of what is presented, it's a still a burden on the other fellow, but not you.
This:
"When we have no evidence favoring either proposition, we must suspend belief in both."
Again, under
one of two acceptable approaches.
In fact they are logically both the same.
The reason is, both incorporate a one side fact of reality.
One is true and the other false. That is the only option in fact of reality.
So they are both of equal starting presumption.
The only difference is one starts on one side, and the other on the other.
Thats why either one is acceptable.
There is no conclusive evidence present to prove either side.
Even if the statement was in the Codex Sinaiticus, it would not conclusively prove Jesus said it, or did not say it.
It would only prove that among the available documentation, that it is consistent with later texts as being attributed to him having said it.
Likewise since it is not in the Codex Sinaiticus, it only shows an inconsistency among available documentation.
It does not conclusively prove he said it, or didn't say it.
Many western languages are Latin/Germanic, neither came from Christianity.
Greece and other cultures established important fields in math and science without Christianity. They also contributed to Democracy, which is popular today.
Rome influenced law, government, and culture
The Renaissance was not motivated by Christianity, but rather by looking back at logic and intellectual curiosity from older times before the Church became powerful.
Christianity was the dominant religious influence, but to say it was the dominant cultural influence overall seems to be a really big stretch.
I've agreed there are a myriad of influences.
My contention is concerning the Christian influence on morals and the associated predisposition of that influence on present day people, particularly in Europe and the Americas.
Christian dominance in culture and morality probably peaked in the Middle Ages and has dropped off since. At that time, I could go along with what you are saying, although those times were quite different from today. Modern times see a distancing from religion and instead apply logic to government and morality. We're a product of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment really. Throw in the civil rights movements of the mid 20th century as well.
Yes I would agree that within the last Hundred years or so, there has been a gradual shift away from the moral absolutes of Christianity, and primarily during the last Fifty years.
But that is a very small time frame, as compared to the last thousand or more.
How? The slave and the slave owner are on equal footing. How can the slave owner justify owning the slave against the slave's will?
Because if justification is derived among men of equal moral authority, eventually practically anything can be justified by one or more.
If gods were the source of morality, it would be easy. The god just has to "slavery is fine".
Like a lot of things that were a result of the fall, they were not fine with God, but since again man had Dominion and autonomy, they had to be addressed over time.
Absolute morality can't be established, it's absolute. The best God can do is know them from the beginning and repeat them to us, but he can't create morality. If he does it's subjective morality and it doesn't mean anything.
Interesting comment.
I see your point, but I'm not sure if it is totally correct.
I have to be believe his moral standards were a part of the work of Creation.
Or part of the plan and engineering from inception.
I don't see them being an add-on.
Christians often reference the fact that God is the creator and that allows him to do X, but really that doesn't mean anything. Being the creator makes God the creator, nothing more. It doesn't make him good, a moral authority, your superior, or anything like that.
If God is as he says, he is a paradox, which indicates that he doesn't exist.
What does that have to do with existence?
Who says it doesn't matter. It's wrong because it's logically wrong. We are all on equal footing (ie our desires are subjective). This leaves theft unjustifiable because the subjective desire to steal an item can't be said to have priority over the owner's desire to retain property.
As I said before all of that sounds good, but it is wholly dependant on the next guy or group seeing it as you do.
Or they might see it as a selective proposition.
Since again there is no higher moral standard to appeal to, on what authority can you declare righteousness as to your moral logic, being you and them are equals authoritatively.
That remains true even if God said that stealing was morally correct. God would be wrong; moral absolutes.
Well God is solidly on your side there.
It's really the only thing worth discussing in this whole topic.
The would be killer's will is as valid as mine, but not his justification (if he actually does kill me). He has no justification.
It only matters to him what
he believes is justifiable.
What you deem justifiable may not be a consideration for him.
It is about logic. Logic is how you justify something.
Logic is how some people justify something.
Most people justify with their own brand of logic.
And some justify without any logic at all.
The point is on an equal level of moral authority, logic is just one of many competing considerations for justification.
