<p>“The argument is not just about the proof of god, but also the fallacy that moral objectivm in any form can exist because of a being. You have missed the point. Claiming a being can be the source of objective morality if a logically flawed statement. All morality must be subjective-Christians should say they accept god morals but not claim his morality is somehow objective in nature.”</p>
<p>I know, but that’s what they say. I completely agree with it is logically flawed. But that doesn’t matter to some people, especially when the being itself is not proven empirically. Why would it be surprising to you that they consider God to be the source of goodness? He IS pure good, by definition. It’s not logically proven, of course.</p>
<p>“It does mean that.”</p>
<p>No, no. Nonsensical does not have the connotations that illogical has, or even irrational. Nonsensical means that it does not make sense. Religion makes perfect sense when you consider within the context of itself. Given a certain number of illogical statements, then other things follow in a very sensible way.</p>
<p>“Like I said if they admit they hold illogical beliefs I don’t care anymore/ Many do try to claim that their belief can be proven though. I meet them all the time.”</p>
<p>But not through logic. And to them, that’s more than enough to prove a religion or a philosophy. Please don’t assume that everyone has the same standards that you do. You may claim that yours is correct, and others may disagree. But you’re not really able to start with the assumption that a belief is untrue unless logically proven when religion doesn’t claim to be logically proven in the first place.</p>
<p>“I have the ability to not hold to arguments for non rational primarily emotional reasons.”</p>
<p>In other words, you are superior to them only in that you have the correct belief about religion and logic? I don’t have a problem with that. </p>
<p>“Let me rephrase as you are correct. “We can not hold to position logically and claim it is true rationally without proving it”. I did write that at 4 in the morning so give me a break.”</p>
<p>Fair. An unproven statement is one about which we cannot make judgments regarding its veracity.</p>
<p>“Any definition of “great” is going to be subjective. I do not mean to imply that their work has no value. The way that Aquinas used Aristotelian thought was very interesting for example. I just do not think they are as great as Kant, who basically changed the face of modern philosophy. I admit to disliking Augustine myself, though he was the first one to propose evolution.”</p>
<p>Hmmm…This is a fine reason. Although you must not like how Augustine used Greek philosophy either… But of course, that is your opinion. I hope that you understand what my perspective was. I didn’t understand the basis for your claim, and now you have laid it out for me. </p>
<p>“I would say that this does not apply to Christianity. I think a lot of it is contradictory, such as the Triune god.”</p>
<p>It’s not contradictory if you understand the reasoning behind it. For example, Jesus’ resurrection defies our idea of life and death. Obviously, it is illogical and nonsensical on the surface. However, in the way that all the pieces of a religion fit together and work, it forms a beautiful tapestry out of threads that would otherwise be “ugly” or unfit to use. </p>
<p>“On the other hand I think it is important that this issue is raised without allowing religion to appeal to special pleading so I think it was justified somewhat.”</p>
<p>Oh, you’re completely right. But again, most religious people don’t find that truth comes solely through empiricism.</p>