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

MORALITY "If it is accepted as a valid to simply state an assumption and then draw a conclusion, then the rebuttal to this is as simple as - The God of the Bible does not exist, and this is why and how (insert desired moral stance here) ..." I purposely made it clear that Im presupposing the existence of the Christian God so I can point out that you have presuppositions as well. For example you are presupposing that, the only way we can know if something is true is by thorough observation using logic and reason. You did not use that same standard to prove that statement, you presupposed it and took it for granted. "More specifically, I would assert morality, being defined as the behavior which categorizes decisions as being right or wrong is an evolutionary development. Consider the following : Is there a Bible which can be referred when there is a dispute among scientists - no. Is it then a valid assertion to state that all conclusions are arbitrary? Science as a body of knowledge obviously progresses, it does not simply wander in circles with arbitrary decisions endlessly diverging - thus this assertion, as a general principle fails. Or lets look at something a lot more subjective. As there is no Bible which notes what is or is not art, does this mean that it is pointless to support the arts because it is all arbitrary and you might as well just decide in a random manner to encourage any activity with no way to quantify talent in a young child and encourage them to focus on that area as they show signs of an emergent artistic genius. Is there really no way to judge the wit and humor of Tom Arnold vs George Carlin or the acting ability of Megan Fox vs Hilary Swank, all such decisions are completely arbitrary without asking God?" This is exactly the problem. In your presupposed worldview, morality comes from humanity, we developed it through evolution. And just like our tastes in art, as you mentioned, we have differing views. On what ground then can you tell a rapist that he is immoral? He thinks its ok, it makes him happy. On what ground do you say, you're doing something evil? Believe it or not I honestly think Keanu Reeves is a good actor. Most of my friends disagree of course, but they can't force me to change my opinion, since I have my own standards of what a good actor is. "If this is true, then the immediate question which shows the nature of the problem here is - 'If God told you to [insert some extreme action here] you would happily and cheerful do it with full confidence it was moral?'" Yes. Now it is clear you can not reject this action by saying, 'God would not do [insert some extreme action here].' because what is good and moral is simply defined only by what God does. If you say for example, 'Well God could not lie.' this means you have an external framework which you are applying, you have decided God can not lie and you would reject something which is lying as being not God. If you were to say 'God has said he can not lie.' this again means that God has acknowledged that morality is not what is the nature of God but what constrains the nature of God. The question then becomes what compels him not to lie, how is lying decided to be immoral? If he simply decided not to lie how is that any less arbitrary than if anyone decides not to lie as they consider it immoral?" The answer is that God's perfectly good nature IS the standard of good and evil. There are no standards or absolutes outside of God. I wouldn't have a standard to apply to God since He IS the standard of good and evil. Just like light itself is the standard for what's light and darkness. If it's not light its darkness. But as you can see, darkness is nothing but the absence of light. We don't ask if light itself is light or darkness. In the same way the standard of good and evil can not be applied to God since He is the "good" of good or evil, and the absence of his goodness is automatically evil. LOGIC "They are not agreed upon, there is considerable contention about the various frameworks, though yes, I would assert they, like language, are simply evolutionary constructs. One obvious indication of this is that as our mathematical ability increases we invent new logical frameworks to solve problems which could no be solved in the existing ones. This is no different than the various number systems, natural, rational, irrational, imaginary, which ones are the absolute and true numbers? Note we thought we knew that each time we had a particular set only to find some very clever person could define a new set and use it to produce very interesting results." 1. Can you define what a "framework" is, in regards to the laws of logic? and also give an example of a couple of frameworks. 2. So if it is like the rules of language and grammar, can an opposing system of logic be equally as valid? for example, If I produce a system of logic where contradictions are ok, will this be valid? 3. Which one of the contending "frameworks" is science based on? "A system of logic can not be assessed as logical, that is like asking if a defined number system contains numbers, they obviously do and it is by definition. A system of logic is evaluated by its utility, i.e, what, if applied can it produce." 1. You're still proposing that there are different systems of logic. Define logic and define "laws of logic" 2. Do the laws of logic reflect reality and vice versa? if so how can there be varying systems of logic? "Which laws are universal and absolute? Exactly, and this process is not, again, a divergent arbitrary wandering path. For example : 'An Adaptive Filter Based Fuzzy Logic Controller Incorporating MTPA for IPMSM Drives' (Digital Object Identifier: 10.1109/KESE.2009.63 ) Quote : 'A fuzzy logic controller (FLC) for the IPMSM drive has been found to maintain high performance standards with a much simpler and less computation implementation.' Fuzzy logic is a logic which rejects the classical law of the excluded middle. If logic is an absolute, then which one of these systems is the absolute one (fuzzy or classical) - they can not both be as they contradict each other." The laws of logic are universal and absolute. Aristotle's classical laws are absolute, and I would argue that every thought/statement can be reduced and simplified to either be truth or falsity. Fuzzy logic wouldn't be necessary if the the fuzzy thought is made more specific by giving specific definitions to each word. "Our current best understanding of the nature of the universe comes in the form of Quantum Theory, which certainly defies classical logic - so again what system of logic applies to it?" Explain how Quantum theory defies the classical laws. EPISTEMOLOGY "It would not follow if one rejected God that they would assume a complete supreme ego centric viewpoint. Just as an individual could decide to give themselves to the will of God, an individual could decide to give them self to the will of another person, or group of people." Im wasnt talking about individuals only, im talking about humanity as a whole. If lets say an alien race asks us, "why is raping immoral?" our answer would be "because we say so" if they ask us "why is self contradiction illogical? " the answer again would be "because we say so, we never did any observations to conclude this, we just came up with it and went from there" "1) How do you know know God exists and how do you know his nature is moral?" He revealed Himself and His character to me through his creation, which includes me and his word (scripture). "2) What could you experience which would falsify this belief?" If my worldview refutes itself it would automatically be falsified. If one thing about Christianity is proven false then it is falsified. Its pretty easy actually, but impossible because Christianity is truth. Let me ask you how with in your world vie