"An absolute standard exists by which acts can be correctly judged as morally right or wrong." – Enyart Post #4
" The absolute standard has a set of rules…" – Enyart Post #4
" This absolute moral standard declares that no one should ever do wrong hoping that good might come of it." – Enyart Post #4
There is nothing in the definitions that would state or imply that merely because an individual does not believe in the existence of absolute moral values that the individual does not believe in right or wrong. I, myself, am an example of the falsehood of Pastor Enyart's statement. I hold certain acts to be wrong (contrary to my conscience, morality, or law) and certain acts to be right (conforming to justice, law, or morality). I merely disbelieve the absolute nature of any moral pronouncement.Right:
- 1. Conforming with or conformable to justice, law, or morality: do the right thing and confess.
2. In accordance with fact, reason, or truth
- 1. Not in conformity with fact or truth; incorrect or erroneous.
2. Contrary to conscience, morality, or law; immoral or wicked.
- 1. The selecting of someone or something over another or others.
2. The right or chance to so choose.
3. Someone or something so chosen
He kindly provides us an exact quotation of his words. So I looked back in his posts and how many times do you suppose the phrase "God's own righteous standard" appears as an answer to my question?"… I have previously answered that the absolute moral standard is God’s righteous nature, which is “God’s own righteous standard,”
For, if there is an absolute Originator, then logically, an absolute moral standard would have originated with Him.
"I follow God, and He is the standard you ask for. "
Could science ever conceivably close the gap between the observation of biological life, and that the first life must have arisen naturally? Could science ever theoretically close the gap between the observation of the universe, and that the universe must have originated naturally? Could science ever close the gap between the observation of consciousness, and that self-awareness must have arisen naturally? Will the atheist admit that these are theoretical possibilities?... Zakath, can science possibly discover real limitations of matter, energy, and natural processes? Here’s a psychology experiment: As an atheist, can you admit that you would rather not think about the limits of natural processes? Can you admit a bias in which you would be slower to recognize a scientific limitation of nature than would a theist?
In keeping with my general promise above, since this is a science question, I'll not answer it except to make the following general comment. An important characteristic of a scientific theory or hypotheis is that it be "falsifiable". This means that there must be an experiment or possible discovery that could prove the theory untrue. For example, Einstein's theory of Relativity made predictions about the results of experiments. These experiments could have produced results that contradicted Einstein, so the theory was (and still is) falsifiable.Zakath, could science conceivably ever falsify natural origins by closing the gap for the origin of the universe and biological life, showing conclusively that natural processes themselves cannot account for such origins?
Pastor Enyart, please correct me if I am reading this wrong, but it sounds to me as if you are saying that if I make any argument that uses your scriptures that you will refuse to address it until after I am no longer able to refute an argument you present., I will postpone answering it until my last post. (I will meet similar future attempts likewise.)
Since I was debating someone who is allegedly a Christian, I merely used the Bible to clarify why my premises were true (at least from a Christian's point of view). If Pastor Enyart had been a Muslim, I would have used the Qu'ran. Why do you suppose that a Christian pastor would refuse to use one of the few textual sources in the world that allegedly clearly supports his arguments for the existence of his deity?… I will avoid specifically Scriptural arguments and for the benefit of the readers, stick to the debate topic of Does God Exist? … I think readers can recognize Zakath’s instance of the Argument from Non-Belief as an attempt to divert the debate into a wide-ranging discussion of the Bible…
Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.