descarte
JF-Expert Member
- Apr 1, 2013
- 1,213
- 296
i mentioned human being,I never said Foetus or Zygote. try to differentiate between human being and foetus,they are not the same. that is why i say you gonna have a serious linguistic problem.
Nope that is not true, you can even die while in your mother's stomach.
My moral argument is the evidence of existence of God. Refute if you can.
Moral argument can never be the evidence of the existence of supreme being. We do not have moral objective in the sense you are arguing. Our moral beliefs can be explained in naturalistic account. This means that the environment we are born have great impact on our values.
Anyway can you give me an example of any moral value which you consider ontologically objective?
So, you have no idea what are moral values? Am I correct?
I am not arguing in favor of theistic or atheistic view, what i put across is that both views cannot give the evidence of either god exists or not. You argument does not hold water in whatever sense. In short the argument is full of ad hominem nothing else.
Of course a human being die when he or she is born, denial of that causing a serious problem of language.
The what are you defending? I gave you massive evidence of existence of God, you gave me empty denials. You keep piling up questions and objections, then dance, spin and deflect when answered substantively and proven wrong. You refuse to answer anything I ask or hold yourself accountable.
Contingency God is the best and sole explanation for why something exists contingently rather than nothing "nihillo ex nihilo or nihilism". Something cannot begin from nothing without a cause. Therefore, Something necessarily self-exists, inter-alia, self-existence is logically necessary. A Universe from Self creation is logically impossible. Our Universe began to exist. Our Universe is not self-existent. Our Universe requires a causally antecedent agency to explain its existence. God does not God has no beginning, but self-exists as prime.
Refute my argument with evidence and not empty denials.
Let me ask you this: Is raping a child (a) good (b) evil (c) bad
[h=2]Now where uses phrases "human" or "human being"[/h]
[h=1]Is The Life In The Womb A Human Individual?[/h]
- Uses "man, woman, child, son, daughter, baby etc."
- Since these terms are used for unborn children, then we have evidence that human life is present before birth
- The Bible makes no distinction of any kind in the terms used to describe a fetus.
- Body without spirit is dead: Jas 2:26
- The blood is the life: Deut 12:23 fetus has bloodstream at 4 weeks
Those are evidences of God's existence, if you have the ability to refute them and ready to suffer intellectual defeat, please do so.you just bring many things which i do not wanna go through them. but the issue of causality is merely your category.
Dumb people will say exactly like what you construed above. Do you support murder? Is abortion legal and okay to you?
Those are evidences of God's existence, if you have the ability to refute them and ready to suffer intellectual defeat, please do so.
The what are you defending? I gave you massive evidence of existence of God, you gave me empty denials. You keep piling up questions and objections, then dance, spin and deflect when answered substantively and proven wrong. You refuse to answer anything I ask or hold yourself accountable.
Contingency God is the best and sole explanation for why something exists contingently rather than nothing "nihillo ex nihilo or nihilism". Something cannot begin from nothing without a cause. Therefore, Something necessarily self-exists, inter-alia, self-existence is logically necessary. A Universe from Self creation is logically impossible. Our Universe began to exist. Our Universe is not self-existent. Our Universe requires a causally antecedent agency to explain its existence. God does not God has no beginning, but self-exists as prime.
Refute my argument with evidence and not empty denials.
i have refuted it, it seems you do not get it. you first premise in your argument is not correct. if you based your conclusion on wrong premises then the conclusion will be false you. This is the way deductive argument goes. Anyway, in whatever the case one cannot hold that moral objectivity exists because of the supreme being,that proposition is wrong because there is presumption.
In fact you cannot take that statement to be right because you have not verified if it is impossible for Human beings to have objective morality without considering God. It is just a wrong claim that is why many moral philosophers deny the connection of supreme being and moral values.
anyway in philosophy. you do not answer question by question