Safe Mode: On
Have we changed? TRUTH
 Part of channel(s): Yoursay (promoted)

Arguments used are below:

For there to be a universal moral law, there must be a universal moral law giver. There is a universal moral law; therefore there is a universal moral law giver (God). There must be a standard that transcends human culture to account for these laws.

Horizontal Cosmological Argument
-originated by St. Bonaventure

1. The universe had a beginning
2. Anything that has a beginning must have a cause.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Vertical Cosmological Argument
-originated by Thomas Aquinas and refined by Norman L. Geisler

1. Finite changing things exist.
2. Finite, changing things must be caused to exist.
3.There cannot be an infinite regress of these causes.
4. Therefore, there must be a first uncaused cause of every finite, changing thing that exists.

By examining creation and systematically combining good arguments that point to the existence of God, we clearly see the invisible attributes of God start emerging.

- We know that something undeniable exists.
- Nothing cannot cause something.
- Something necessary and eternally exists.
- I am not eternal and necessary.
- Whatever is not eternal and necessary needs a cause.
- Therefore, there is an eternal and necessary cause of my existence.
- This eternal and necessary cause must be all-powerful, all-knowing, all-perfect (or good) and personal.
- This eternal and necessary cause is identical to the Being described as the God in the Christian Scriptures.

The God described in the Bible is eternal (Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2), changeless (Mal. 3:6; Heb. 6:18), infinite (1 Kings 8:27; Isa. 66:1) all powerful (Heb. 1:3; Matt. 19:26), and all-loving (John 3:16; 1 John 4:16).

"so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father" (Philippians 2:11 ESV)

"Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen." (Romans 1:24-25)

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life" (John 3:16).

All photographs in this video were taken from institutions that have concluded that these photographs are free of copyright restrictions and they have provided an open invite to share them. There are "No known copyright restrictions." The institutions in which these photographs came are unaware of any copyright restrictions on the publication, distribution, or re-use of these particular photos. Their use restriction status is "unrestricted." Therefore, no written permission is required to use them.
http://www.flickr.com/commons

This is a response to a few people on LL that have labeled fallacies that are just not the case.
The first argument is valid; it's an instance of what's called "modus
ponens" (the structure is "If P, then Q; P; Therefore, Q"). The
structure of affirming the consequent (which is an informal fallacy) is
"If P, then Q; Q; therefore P"--the moral argument is not an instance of
affirming the consequent. Neither is the argument circular. An
argument is circular if (and only if) it contains a premise that
wouldn't be accepted by anyone who doesn't already
accept the conclusion. But plenty of atheists *do* agree that if there
is an objective moral law, then there is an objective moral law-giver
(Friedrich Nietzsche, J. L. Mackie, to name a couple).



The second and third arguments are also deductively valid. They aren't based on what we don't know
(there is no appeal to ignorance made anywhere in the argument).
Rather, they are based on what we do know. If the claim is that one or
more of the premises is more plausibly true than false, then that will
need to be stated and defended. If not, then the conclusion holds.


Added: Apr-26-2012 Occurred On: Apr-26-2012
By: Rocco_Maximus
In: Your Say, Religion
Tags: Truth, light, God, Jesus, Bible, Honest, John, History, Law, Moral Law, Philosophy, Absolute Truth, Rejecting, Religion, Thomas Aquinas, Romans, Cause, Eternal, Existence, fin
Location: United States (load item map)
Marked as: approved
Views: 5132 | Comments: 61 | Votes: 2 | Favorites: 1 | Shared: 0 | Updates: 0 | Times used in channels: 2
You need to be registered in order to add comments! Register HERE
Sort by: Newest first | Oldest first | Highest score first
Liveleak opposes racial slurs - if you do spot comments that fall into this category, please report them for us to review.

  • : "For there to be a universal moral law,

    there must be a universal moral law giver. There is a universal moral

    law; therefore there is a universal moral law giver"

    That argument is so circular you could bowl with it.

    Also, why must there be a "law giver"? Ever read social contract theory?

    Posted Apr-26-2012 By 
    jum_runky (1625.84)  

    (6)

  • You want profound truth and honesty? Nobody knows the answers to the questions attempted to be answered here. Nobody. The ones who pretend to are lying. Instead of dealing with this fundamental truth, people believe whatever lie makes them feel like they have the answer they want and were looking for.

    Posted Apr-26-2012 By 
    JamesRWII (430.36)  

    (2)

  • Comment of user 'fresnopete' has been deleted by author!
    • Comment of user 'Rocco_Maximus' has been deleted by author!
    • Comment of user 'fresnopete' has been deleted by author!
    • Comment of user 'Rocco_Maximus' has been deleted by author!
    • Comment of user 'ElegantDecline' has been deleted by item owner!

    • @fresnopete the Aryans are the sons of god and are the founders of the idea of yourAbrahamic god.

      Posted Apr-27-2012 By 
      Velhalla (187.80)  

      (-1)

  • Is this the page with examples of a few different logical fallicies? I thought I clciked on a video about the "truth".

    Posted Apr-26-2012 By 
    barogers619 (1107.56)

    (1)

    • Comment of user 'Rocco_Maximus' has been deleted by author!

    • @Rocco_Maximus OH yes i did! I spelled "clicked" wrong too but thanks for not pointing that out!

      "For there to be a universal moral law, there must be a universal moral law giver. There is a universal moral law; therefore there is a universal moral law giver (God)."

      Inductive fallacy, circular arguement, affirming the consequent.

      "We know that something undeniable exists.
      - Nothing cannot cause something.
      - Something necessary and eternally exists.
      - I am not eter More..

      Posted Apr-26-2012 By 
      barogers619 (1107.56)

      (3)

    • Comment of user 'Rocco_Maximus' has been deleted by author!

    • @Rocco_Maximus The first arguement is far from valid!!

      Its been a while since my last philosphy class so I had to refresh using google. Lets break it down.

      (For there to be a universal moral law)

      This isnt "modus ponens" but in fact a circular arguement. By mentioning "for there" the conclusion has already been made that there has to be something else. A(FOR THERE to be a universal moral law) is true because B(THERE MUST be a universal moral law giver) is true; B(therefor More..

      Posted May-1-2012 By 
      barogers619 (1107.56)

      (0)

    • Comment of user 'Rocco_Maximus' has been deleted by author!

  • The ontological arguments are flawed and always have been my man. Nothing could have been created without a creator...which negates the 5 proofs right there. Nothing can be in motion unless something set it in motion...could just as easily be attributed to quantum physics as it could to God's existence. The varying degrees of greatness must eventually lead to the greatest of all things, which, again, is just the usual a priori argument. Infinite chain of causation, etc, etc, etc.

    In the end, a More..

    Posted Apr-27-2012 By 
    Blackhawk067 (575.18)

    (1)

    • Comment of user 'Rocco_Maximus' has been deleted by author!
    • Comment of user 'Rocco_Maximus' has been deleted by author!
    • Comment of user 'Rocco_Maximus' has been deleted by author!

    • @Rocco_Maximus Miracles are objective and simply a matter of perspective. You cannot prove they exist any more than Hume can prove they do not.

      Posted Apr-27-2012 By 
      Blackhawk067 (575.18)

      (1)

    • @Rocco_Maximus Again, a priori argument. Quoting the bible doesn't add any credence to your argument man, as it written by men.

      I can simply say that the "universal morals" you attribute to God are simply a product of nature instilled in us to formulate a better functioning and more cohesive society. We don't kill out of pleasure simply because it doesn't give us pleasure to do so. Why should God receive credit for it? Besides, if you're going to credit God with our universal moral v More..

      Posted Apr-27-2012 By 
      Blackhawk067 (575.18)

      (1)

  • There is no god.

    Posted Apr-27-2012 By 
    -sloop- (3155.52)  

    (1)

    • Comment of user 'Rocco_Maximus' has been deleted by author!

    • @Rocco_Maximus...show me one. Show me a god. Faith? I have no faith. All I know is what I've seen. I never heard a dying man cry out for god. It was "mama" or "mother". And I've seen a few men die. You can believe what ever you want and I hope it makes you feel comfortable. Just don't push religion on me. Thanks. No hard feeling, OK?

      Posted Apr-27-2012 By 
      -sloop- (3155.52)  

      (4)

    • Comment of user 'Rocco_Maximus' has been deleted by author!

    • @Rocco_Maximus...No! No! That's not what I was saying. I have no problem with religion, believe what you want to. I just don't like it when people try to drag me into it. Like knocking on my door and shoving a pamphlet in my face. I wasn't saying that you were pushing religion on me. I'm sorry I made it sound that way.

      Posted Apr-28-2012 By 
      -sloop- (3155.52)  

      (0)

    • Comment of user 'Rocco_Maximus' has been deleted by author!

  • I do not believe in a God, I think the actions of humans are so chemically driven, It disproves his/her/it's existence. It's a shame really, as the world kinda needs one.

    Posted Apr-28-2012 By 
    edkemper (814.56)  

    (0)

    • Comment of user 'Rocco_Maximus' has been deleted by author!

  • How does how I deal with 'truth' here determine what I experience for eternity?

    Posted Apr-26-2012 By 
    ElegantDecline (2144.58)  

    (0)

  • you truly lost me when you said Christ... and bullshit i am a man who would lay my life down just to save another, just like your Christ... but i do not do it for honor but for i am human, so please my good sir i was once godless but in that time I've only became pure and truly human.. and to let you know yes i have grown up Christian but i never thought about Jesus once when i saved another life nor will i ever need to.. love and life by my side if i would to die for my fellow human beings coul More..

    Posted Apr-29-2012 By 
    Dead Poet (45.20)  

    (0)

  • I give you credit for putting that out here. Interesting debate and discussion :-)

    Posted Apr-30-2012 By 
    marinemom (5471.18)  

    (0)

  • Sweeeet

    Posted Apr-26-2012 By 
    LimitedTime (213.90)  

    (0)

  • islam is its own ,christians are wrong and what ever the fuck you read is wrong too , You people are so scared cause its so simple , DO i need some saint jessy jakcson ? or sait sharpton ??

    Posted Apr-26-2012 By 
    Suavek (53.40)  

    (0)

  • here's how it works; moralistic (or more accurately altruistic) behaviour in some species under some circumstances gives that species a survival edge; individuals are able to breed more successfully, and it gets passed on genetically. The behaviour, random in origin, is selected for by ordinary natural forces. If there is a creator of morals, it is the universe. It's estimated that one in ten people are psycopathic, in other words unable to feel empathy; one has to wonder why this is becoming More..

    Posted Apr-26-2012 By 
    PocoBueno (1320.08)  

    (0)

  • God? Show us what he has done lately. Or, for that matter, show us ANYTHING he has done, ever (proof required). God must like violence, killings, war, famine, destruction, etc., because there is so much of it, all around us, all over the world. With that said, he must be good friends with Lucifer, wouldn't you say? This would be a logical conclusion, as Lucifer likes the same things. They must be really good buddies. I can see them, sitting in front of the TV, having a couple of brews, watching More..

    Posted Apr-26-2012 By 
    IamCanadian (448.80)  

    (0)

  • I watched and I listened. Then I looked at what LLers said. If you look, you will see sound logic.

    Here is something else to think about.

    We know there are laws of nature and physics and we know they cant be broken. How is it they all work together perfectly to make up everything we know and are still learning about? Why are there no laws that clash with other laws? How is it even possible to have all the laws of nature and physics working together? From a numeric perspective, the odds are in More..

    Posted Apr-26-2012 By 
    spetznaz (50.00)  

    (0)