Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

[six7s]

And since I have shown the increased likelihood that God exists, I have shown the increased likelihood the NT writers were telling the truth.

NO

You have NOT shown an increased likelihood that God exists

You have NOT shown an increased likelihood the NT writers were telling the truth

All you have shown is that your delusions are - for you - exceedingly easy to maintain

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

First of all let me say the following information is relevant and important to this thread because if we can show an increased likelihood in the existence of God then that will certainly increase the likelihood the NT writers were telling the truth.





Absolute morality are moral laws that exist regardless of subjective human opinions. And if there are "no" absolute moral laws outside of humanity then if Germany, Japan, and Italy won WWII and taken over the world then the Holocaust would not have been evil.

So, if you believe the Holocaust was evil no matter who won the war then you believe in absolute moral laws. Now the problem becomes who made these absolute moral laws. Moral Laws are made by a Lawmaker or Lawmakers, they are not made by primordial swamp scum. So if you believe in absolute moral laws outside of humanity's opinion then you must believe in either a God or Gods who created those Moral Laws; or you believe that swamp scum (aka non-living physical material) can make moral laws.





Then you believe that if Germany and Japan had taken over the world the Holocaust would not be considered evil throughout most of the world.




This is true unless you believe absolute morality can be created out of swamp scum or some other non-living material...



Then since you do not believe in absolute morality this is just an opinion of yours and you have no more right to your opinion than Hitler had of his opinion.

__

So I contend that since most people believe the Holocaust and things like slavery and genocide and murder are evil regardless of what others think or say then this is an argument that there is an absolute morality in the world and thus this is an argument for the increased likelihood that a absolute moral lawgiver exists and that absolute moral lawgiver is either God or swamp scum (aka non-living physical material). Since it would seem impossible that swamp scum (aka non-living physical material) can create absolute moral laws this increases the likelihood that God exists.

And since I have shown the increased likelihood that God exists, I have shown the increased likelihood the NT writers were telling the truth.

Actually you dismiss your own proof as soon as you make it. If 'most people' believe that something is wrong that it is by very definition not absolute. In fact it shows that right and wrong are purely subjective terms.
As for your example. I'm afraid that if germany had won in europe its quite likely that the holocaust would be considered far less evil, since what is right and what is wrong is something that children have to learn. And Nazi-run schools would have taught a very different curriculum.
\
Actually the fact that children need to be taught the difference between what is acceptable behavior and what isnt also argues against a universal lawgiver.

What always amazes me about such an argument is the fundamentalist idea that without god and his stick of hell forcing us to behave, humanity would sink into an orgy of violence, deprevaty and ceaseless warfare.
Why is it so hard to imagine that humans can be pretty decent to each other based on group interaction and self-derived moral codes?
If someone truly proved to you god does not exist, will you go on a killing spree? Are you that violent? Have you so little control over yourself that only the thought of eternal hellfire prevents you from becoming a sociopath?

 

[DOC]

NO

You have NOT shown an increased likelihood that God exists

You have NOT shown an increased likelihood the NT writers were telling the truth

All you have shown is that your delusions are - for you - exceedingly easy to maintain

Another no explanation post.

I believe there are 3 reasons people make posts without explanations.

1) they require little if any effort.

2) you don't have to worry about having your arguments analyzed.

3) you simply don't have an explanation, but you don't want to leave a post of mine unanswered.

 

[six7s]

Another no explanation post.

I believe there are 3 reasons people make posts without explanations

Quit believing and start thinking

For all but the terminally deluded, my rebuttal of your latest rehash needs no explanation

For the terminally deluded:
My rebuttal of your latest rehash is based on the following highlighted parts of what is wall-to-wall waffle:

So I contend that since most people believe the Holocaust and things like slavery and genocide and murder are evil regardless of what others think or say then this is an argument that there is an absolute morality in the world

NO

Or, rather, its a pathetic argument that there is an absolute morality

this is an argument that there is an absolute morality in the world and thus this is an argument for the increased likelihood that a absolute moral lawgiver exists

NO

If jumping to conclusions was an Olympic event, you'd be in the finals

... increased likelihood that a absolute moral lawgiver exists and that absolute moral lawgiver is either God or swamp scum (aka non-living physical material). Since it would seem impossible that swamp scum (aka non-living physical material) can create absolute moral laws this increases the likelihood that God exists.

NO

Please mount the dais and prepare to receive your gold medal

 

[Mr Clingford]

Not quite...

This is another tradition, one that is commemorated every day of the year in every christian chapel, abbey, basilica, cathedral, every christian parish and every christian home around the world: lying for Jesus

Bugger, again I missed the memo about this. I'm sure you missed some other traditions as well.

 

[DOC]

Actually you dismiss your own proof as soon as you make it.

Identify specifically what you mean by my proof as I never used the word proof in my argument.

If 'most people' believe that something is wrong that it is by very definition not absolute.

Strawman, I never said if most people believed something it would be absolute morality.

In fact it shows that right and wrong are purely subjective terms...

Strawman, you imply that I believe right and wrong is subjective which I don't.

I might get to the rest of your relatively long response as time permits.

 

[six7s]

Bugger, again I missed the memo about this. I'm sure you missed some other traditions as well.

There are no memos

All instructions are conveyed via Grimsbies

GRIMSBY (n.)
A lump of something gristly and foul tasting concealed in a mouthful of stew or pie. Grimsbies are sometimes merely the result of careless cookery, but more often they are placed there deliberately by Freemasons. Grimsbies can be purchased in bulk from any respectable Masonic butcher on giving him the secret Masonic handbag. One is then placed in a guests food to see if he knows the correct masonic method of dealing with it. If the guest is not a Mason, the host may find it entertaining to watch how he handles the obnoxious object. It may be

(a) manfully swallowed, invariably bringing tears to the eyes,

(b) chewed with resolution for up to twenty minutes before eventually resorting to method (a),

(c) choked on fatally.

The Masonic handshake is easily recognised by another Mason incidentally, for by it a used grimsby is passed from hand to hand. The secret Masonic method for dealing with a grimsby is as follows : remove it carefully with the silver tongs provided, using the left hand. Cross the room to your host, hopping on one leg, and ram the grimsby firmly up his nose, shouting, 'Take that, you smug Masonic bastard.'​

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Strawman, I never said if most people believed something it would be absolute morality.

So I contend that since most people believe the Holocaust and things like slavery and genocide and murder are evil regardless of what others think or say then this is an argument that there is an absolute morality in the world and thus this is an argument for the increased likelihood that a absolute moral lawgiver exists and that absolute moral lawgiver is either God or swamp scum (aka non-living physical material).

Your two most pertinent comments nicely lined up in one quote
So you do not believe that if most people believe something it's absolute morality while you believe that if most people believe something evil it is an argument that absolute morality exists
At least it gives a nice insight in why you consider the NT to be a truthful and consistent document

 

[Mr Clingford]

Hmm, food for thought there, 42.

Unfortunately, my mum is a good cook so I had little chance as a child to become a stonecutter.

 

[Akhenaten]

<Godwin snip>

And since I have shown the increased likelihood that God exists, I have shown the increased likelihood the NT writers were telling the truth.

I don't really need a clever riposte here. That is an outright lie.

 

[six7s]

If 'most people' believe that something is wrong that it is by very definition not absolute.

Strawman, I never said if most people believed something it would be absolute morality.

FAIL

Rather than seizing any opportunity to promote your woo, try READING and then REPLYING to what Lukraak_Sisser actually wrote

Then you believe that if Germany and Japan had taken over the world the Holocaust would not be considered evil throughout most of the world.

Note that "most of" does not equate to 'all'

 

[Akhenaten]

Another no explanation post.

I believe there are 3 reasons people make posts without explanations.

1) they require little if any effort.

2) you don't have to worry about having your arguments analyzed.

3) you simply don't have an explanation, but you don't want to leave a post of mine unanswered.

I believe there are 3 reasons people make posts without explanations.

1) there's nothing to explain.

2) there's nothing to explain.

3) there's nothing to explain..

 

[DOC]

I believe there are 3 reasons people make posts without explanations.

1) there's nothing to explain.

2) there's nothing to explain.

3) there's nothing to explain..

The "Moral Argument" for the existence of God is known in Apologetics. To say it is wrong without an explanation is to lose the argument. I would have to call it an ostrich approach, but if some skeptics want to use this ostrich approach I'll be glad.

 

[DOC]

FAIL

Another no explanation post. Without an explanation they mean nothing.

 

[DOC]

I don't really need a clever riposte here. That is an outright lie.

Another no explanation post. They mean nothing without an explanation as to why you think it is a lie.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

The "Moral Argument" for the existence of God is known in Apologetics. To say it is wrong without an explanation is to lose the argument. I would have to call it an ostrich approach, but if some skeptics want to use this ostrich approach I'll be glad.

Actually, Doc, what happened is that you made the argument for us...

See, (as others have already pointed out), you stated that even if the Axis had won WWII, at least some part of the population (this is what most means, btw) would believe the Holocaust was a bad thing. Since some people (even if it's just 1 person, really) believe the Holocaust was a bad thing, then morality cannot be absolute.

ETA: And we can even take this the other way. There are some people right now who believe the Holocaust was not that bad (we call them Neo-Nazis, generally). Since some people (again, even if it's just 1 person) believe the Holocaust was not evil, then morality cannot be absolute (unless by absolute you mean absolutely no overarching basis for morality).

Absolute morality would require EVERY single person on this planet to have the exact same sense of morality - and, well, truth be told, we don't. This is why there are hate crimes, murders, rape, speeding, unsafe lane changes (no turn signal), etc. Because while I might believe that doing 10mph over the speed limit is not that bad, others believe it is morally repulsive to drive any faster than 5mph under the speed limit (trust me, they're out there...mostly on Sundays, it would appear).

 

[joobz]

So I contend that since almost everyone believes the Holocaust and things like slavery and genocide and murder are evil (regardless of what others think or say), then this is an argument that there is an absolute morality in the world and thus this is an argument for the increased likelihood that a absolute moral lawgiver exists and that absolute moral lawgiver is either God or swamp scum (aka non-living physical material).

So, you must believe that Jesus isn't god and that the biblical god isn't the moral source. Afterall, it's clear that god of the bible condones slavery. And we even have evidence that Jesus condoned the beating of slaves. He used it as an analogy of our relationship with god.

 

[six7s]

Another no explanation post. Without an explanation they mean nothing.

Which part of "Note that "most of" does not equate to 'all'" are you having difficulty comprehending?

Seriously DOC... you've been at this for over 13 months, during which time you have made over 1200 posts - each and every one of which has been slam dunked into the dustbin of logical fallacies...

Have you not considered, even for one moment, that it might be YOU and your apologist buddies that are wrong?

Revisit the first page and READ the sincere, coherent and concise replies to your OP - note posts 2 and 3, in which Mashuna and Hokulele each used a simple sentence to illustrate how wrong you were/are...

Also post 28, where Gravy said 'DOC, how is it that you've been posting here since January of 2007 and you don't know what the words "evidence" and "know" mean?'

The sad thing here is that NOTHING has changed for the better... you are - if anything - even more stubbornly ignorant

Sad

 

[DOC]

Your two most pertinent comments nicely lined up in one quote
So you do not believe that if most people believe something it's absolute morality while you believe that if most people believe something evil it is an argument that absolute morality exists

You're confusing absolute with numbers that believe. "Absolute" in this instance means it is right or wrong no matter how many believe or disbelieve it is right or wrong. 100% could believe it right but it would still be wrong if the absolute law said it was wrong.

This absolute morality seems to be ingrained {or put there by God} in almost everyone.

 

[six7s]

This absolute morality seems to be ingrained {or put there by God} in almost everyone.

Which absolute morality?