The Christian God VS Everyone else: Morality, Logic & Reason and Epistemology.

"In my worldview, the reason why morality always existed and is experienced by everyone is because everyone (even people who's never heard of the God of the Bible) has a God imbedded conscience." This is a clear assertion, now can this assertion be demonstrated or falsified or it is simply an assertion without evidence or an argument? "You didn't answer the actual question though. On what ground can you or anyone who does not believe in moral absolutes, call a rapist evil?" The question was answered quite clearly, there is no Bible of science, there is no Bible of Art, there is no Bible for very many things, and yet humanity has the ability to discriminate and make such distinctions, this is self-obvious. If that question is held to be a serious one, then by extension, humanity has no capability to make any distinction on anything unless there is a Bible written for it and thus everything is arbitrary (without restriction or constraint on its nature) without it. "Yes. Anything that God has done, commanded, will do and will command is moral. Just like everything that Light has emitted, and will emit I will automatically call light." There are two direct consequences to this stance : 1) Morality as defined as only to the nature of a being, and thus any nature, regardless of that nature is by definition moral. There is thus no constraint at all on what can, or can not be moral. 2) As there is no higher standard than God, and nothing to constrain it, in fact more than that, its actions are defining in nature, then all such laws are chaotic - they can be or can not be. The most common refutation of this position which shows its severe consequence has been noted, and there has never been an answer which answers the following - "If God commanded you to do X, would you do it, and further would you be happy to do it knowing it was moral?". X here of course is some act which is so extreme and vile that it the answer has to be no, but yet the as held to position has to be yes. That is the problem with a statute of morality which is inherently definitive in nature, it is then not a definition at all. Another way : "On this view, nothing is good until God commands it. This, though, raises a problem too: if nothing is good until God commands it, then what God commands is completely morally arbitrary; God has no moral reason for commanding as he does; morally speaking, he could just as well have commanded anything else. This problem is exacerbated when we consider that God, being omnipotent, could have commanded anything at all. He could, for example, have commanded polygamy, slavery, and the killing of the over-50s. If divine command theory is true, then had he done so then these things would be morally good. That doesnï¿½€™t seem right, though; even if God had commanded these things they would still be morally bad. Divine command theory, then, must be false" - Tim Holt (The Euthyphro Dilemma). "You also claim that there are different CONTRADICTING systems that you can choose from, and there is no right answer. And you're also saying that we CREATE these system when we run into a problem that we can not solve?" There are multiple systems of logic, they have opposing tenants, and they are utilized as noted, references have been provided for the both the direct peer reviewed application and a literature survey. "Question, So whenever one says something or someone is being "illogical" which system of logic are they talking about? That "illogical" something or someone could just be using a different system of logic that contradicts the other one." It generally means classical logic, and yes, non-classical systems are illogical in a classical framework. "For example, we know that if a car is moving towards you, It is CERTAINLY the case that the car is moving towards you, and if it does not stop or turn, it will hit you. You can't try to use a contradicting system of logic to deny that the car is gonna hit you. You have to abide by the ONE reality that we all know. Those who don't are called mentally insane, we don't say, "He's using a different system of logic"" Would it really be asserted that simply because an example of classical logic can be cited that non-classical logics do not exist. I can easily perform an experiment which can be quantified using only Newtonian Mechanics, can it then be asserted that Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity do not exist? "What I was trying to say about Fuzzy logic is that every thought or proposition can be reduced to a binary statement if we make the definitions more specific." If this is true then rewrite a fuzzy logic controller using binary logic. The paper is cited. Simply making the assertion really does not advance the argument, actually bring it to implementation. "We are not talking about engineering and what not. We are talking about epistemology and how we can gain knowledge of reality. This is a discussion about worldviews. An electric fan with 5 fan speed settings is irrelevant." The problems can not be solved with classical logic and they require non-classical systems, this is in the interpretation of observed reality. If it is abandoned that logic is absolute as it describes reality, then what is the nature of the "absoluteness"? It does not confirm to observed reality but is still in what way absolute? "I would falsify other religion's position the same way Im falsifying your worldview, and the same why I told you how to falsify mine, by using it to refute itself." Ok, so what observation(s) demonstrates this assertion (and only this assertion to be true) and what observation(s) would demonstrate it to be false. It is trivial to make an assertion which can not be falsified (see Russell's Teapot) http://en.wikipedia.org... The point here is what exactly is claimed, and can it be strictly demonstrated and falsified, if it can not, then how can it claim to be true where there is no way to distinguish it from a similar competing claim. "You're still not addressing the fact that if logic is produced by man, then you're epistemology is circular and is actually impossible. " It would be circular if the argument was circular : "This we know because we have obtained it from the scientific method" -and- "What is known is what is gained from the scientific method" That is circular logic. However that is now how natural methodology is so applied. The basic tenants go back much further and can be seen from the Dialogues where Socrates asks what does it mean to know. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu.... Theaet. Knowledge is defined as a true assertion with a locus which is just to say that an argument must be able to be made for why it is held to be true. Note this has nothing to do with naturalism, at this level of meta-analysis the locus is undefined it can be natural or supernatural, it is unconstrained.