So, is there proof of INTELLIGENT DESIGN?

[ding]

Like I said before, if you can't see how God has worked in your life, that's on you.

Really? Can you see how God has worked in my life or do you just assume he has?

Good question! You're up, dingbat.

Through the tests you have faced, Taz.

Meaning that the car accident that I was in was God's fault?

Not unless you want to be stupid about it.

What does that mean?

It means that you aren't serious and can't be serious.

That or you are truly stupid.

So what kind of test proves god?

The tests aren't to prove God, Taz.

You said god works in my life through tests, what tests?

The hard ones. The ones that are not pleasant for you.

How do you know they come from god?

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.



Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.



So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.



Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.



If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

Only fools have an expectation of fairness in this life. You must be one of them.

So you have never argued that were treated unfairly?

Yes, but didn't expect the other person to fix the problem, which they of course didn't.

Exactly because.... Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. Which is what we are told in Genesis. You just don't have the intellectual capacity to recognize that wisdom.

I can always count on you to come back with something inane and/or outright stupid.

The person in question knows they did something wrong but doesn't care to rationalize it or even care period and has decided a judge should decide, which was a major wrong step for this person, because, in fact, they were wrong on their assessment of how this would turn out legally, lol. Is that what happened in Genesis?

It totally looks like you believe in universal truth, Taz.

No such thing. Truth is subjective.

I wouldn't have expected you to see it any other way.

And yet when you described YOUR situation it wasn't.

 

[Taz]

Like I said before, if you can't see how God has worked in your life, that's on you.

Really? Can you see how God has worked in my life or do you just assume he has?

Good question! You're up, dingbat.

Through the tests you have faced, Taz.

Meaning that the car accident that I was in was God's fault?

Not unless you want to be stupid about it.

What does that mean?

It means that you aren't serious and can't be serious.

That or you are truly stupid.

So what kind of test proves god?

The tests aren't to prove God, Taz.

You said god works in my life through tests, what tests?

The hard ones. The ones that are not pleasant for you.

How do you know they come from god?

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.



Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.



So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.



Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.



If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

Only fools have an expectation of fairness in this life. You must be one of them.

So you have never argued that were treated unfairly?

Yes, but didn't expect the other person to fix the problem, which they of course didn't.

Exactly because.... Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. Which is what we are told in Genesis. You just don't have the intellectual capacity to recognize that wisdom.

I can always count on you to come back with something inane and/or outright stupid.

The person in question knows they did something wrong but doesn't care to rationalize it or even care period and has decided a judge should decide, which was a major wrong step for this person, because, in fact, they were wrong on their assessment of how this would turn out legally, lol. Is that what happened in Genesis?

It totally looks like you believe in universal truth, Taz.

No such thing. Truth is subjective.

I wouldn't have expected you to see it any other way.

And yet when you described YOUR situation it wasn't.

Yes, both sides have their own truth in the matter. No such thing as universal truth.

 

[ding]

Like I said before, if you can't see how God has worked in your life, that's on you.

Really? Can you see how God has worked in my life or do you just assume he has?

Good question! You're up, dingbat.

Through the tests you have faced, Taz.

Meaning that the car accident that I was in was God's fault?

Not unless you want to be stupid about it.

What does that mean?

It means that you aren't serious and can't be serious.

That or you are truly stupid.

So what kind of test proves god?

The tests aren't to prove God, Taz.

You said god works in my life through tests, what tests?

The hard ones. The ones that are not pleasant for you.

How do you know they come from god?

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.



Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.



So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.



Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.



If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

Only fools have an expectation of fairness in this life. You must be one of them.

So you have never argued that were treated unfairly?

Yes, but didn't expect the other person to fix the problem, which they of course didn't.

Exactly because.... Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. Which is what we are told in Genesis. You just don't have the intellectual capacity to recognize that wisdom.

I can always count on you to come back with something inane and/or outright stupid.

The person in question knows they did something wrong but doesn't care to rationalize it or even care period and has decided a judge should decide, which was a major wrong step for this person, because, in fact, they were wrong on their assessment of how this would turn out legally, lol. Is that what happened in Genesis?

It totally looks like you believe in universal truth, Taz.

No such thing. Truth is subjective.

I wouldn't have expected you to see it any other way.

And yet when you described YOUR situation it wasn't.

Yes, both sides have their own truth in the matter. No such thing as universal truth.

So in YOUR world there is no such thing as truth at all. Truth is just an opinion. Interesting. That seems like how sociopaths and pedophiles would see it.

Tell that to the mother of a child that was raped by some guy who didn't believe it was a universal truth that it was wrong to rape children.

 

[LittleNipper]

Like I said before, if you can't see how God has worked in your life, that's on you.

Really? Can you see how God has worked in my life or do you just assume he has?

Good question! You're up, dingbat.

Through the tests you have faced, Taz.

Meaning that the car accident that I was in was God's fault?

Not unless you want to be stupid about it.

What does that mean?

It means that you aren't serious and can't be serious.

That or you are truly stupid.

So what kind of test proves god?

The tests aren't to prove God, Taz.

You said god works in my life through tests, what tests?

The hard ones. The ones that are not pleasant for you.

How do you know they come from god?

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.



Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.



So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.



Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.



If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

Only fools have an expectation of fairness in this life. You must be one of them.

So you have never argued that were treated unfairly?

Yes, but didn't expect the other person to fix the problem, which they of course didn't.

Exactly because.... Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. Which is what we are told in Genesis. You just don't have the intellectual capacity to recognize that wisdom.

I can always count on you to come back with something inane and/or outright stupid.

The person in question knows they did something wrong but doesn't care to rationalize it or even care period and has decided a judge should decide, which was a major wrong step for this person, because, in fact, they were wrong on their assessment of how this would turn out legally, lol. Is that what happened in Genesis?

It totally looks like you believe in universal truth, Taz.

No such thing. Truth is subjective.

I wouldn't have expected you to see it any other way.

And yet when you described YOUR situation it wasn't.

Yes, both sides have their own truth in the matter. No such thing as universal truth.

So, 1 + 1 may or may not equal 2?

 

[ding]

Like I said before, if you can't see how God has worked in your life, that's on you.

Really? Can you see how God has worked in my life or do you just assume he has?

Good question! You're up, dingbat.

Through the tests you have faced, Taz.

Meaning that the car accident that I was in was God's fault?

Not unless you want to be stupid about it.

What does that mean?

It means that you aren't serious and can't be serious.

That or you are truly stupid.

So what kind of test proves god?

The tests aren't to prove God, Taz.

You said god works in my life through tests, what tests?

The hard ones. The ones that are not pleasant for you.

How do you know they come from god?

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.



Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.



So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.



Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.



If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

Only fools have an expectation of fairness in this life. You must be one of them.

So you have never argued that were treated unfairly?

Yes, but didn't expect the other person to fix the problem, which they of course didn't.

Exactly because.... Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. Which is what we are told in Genesis. You just don't have the intellectual capacity to recognize that wisdom.

I can always count on you to come back with something inane and/or outright stupid.

The person in question knows they did something wrong but doesn't care to rationalize it or even care period and has decided a judge should decide, which was a major wrong step for this person, because, in fact, they were wrong on their assessment of how this would turn out legally, lol. Is that what happened in Genesis?

It totally looks like you believe in universal truth, Taz.

No such thing. Truth is subjective.

I wouldn't have expected you to see it any other way.

And yet when you described YOUR situation it wasn't.

Yes, both sides have their own truth in the matter. No such thing as universal truth.

So, 1 + 1 may or may not equal 2?

In Taz's world there is no truth at all, only opinions.

I don't believe I have ever heard anything so stupid before. That sounds like something people who want to do bad things would believe. Which actually proves there is a universal truth.

When men do bad things and say there is no universal truth to justify their actions it proves they know what they did is wrong.

Now if Taz wanted to prove there was no universal truth, he would argue the hell with your universal code of common decency. I want to do evil. That would be a sound argument.

 

[ding]

Next time send me a bigger one.

Mystery, Alaska (1999) clip with quote Next time send me a bigger one. Yarn is the best search for video clips by quote. Find the exact moment in a TV show, movie, or music video you want to share. Easily move forward or backward to get to the perfect clip.

getyarn.io

 

[Taz]

Like I said before, if you can't see how God has worked in your life, that's on you.

Really? Can you see how God has worked in my life or do you just assume he has?

Good question! You're up, dingbat.

Through the tests you have faced, Taz.

Meaning that the car accident that I was in was God's fault?

Not unless you want to be stupid about it.

What does that mean?

It means that you aren't serious and can't be serious.

That or you are truly stupid.

So what kind of test proves god?

The tests aren't to prove God, Taz.

You said god works in my life through tests, what tests?

The hard ones. The ones that are not pleasant for you.

How do you know they come from god?

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.



Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.



So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.



Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.



If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

Only fools have an expectation of fairness in this life. You must be one of them.

So you have never argued that were treated unfairly?

Yes, but didn't expect the other person to fix the problem, which they of course didn't.

Exactly because.... Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. Which is what we are told in Genesis. You just don't have the intellectual capacity to recognize that wisdom.

I can always count on you to come back with something inane and/or outright stupid.

The person in question knows they did something wrong but doesn't care to rationalize it or even care period and has decided a judge should decide, which was a major wrong step for this person, because, in fact, they were wrong on their assessment of how this would turn out legally, lol. Is that what happened in Genesis?

It totally looks like you believe in universal truth, Taz.

No such thing. Truth is subjective.

I wouldn't have expected you to see it any other way.

And yet when you described YOUR situation it wasn't.

Yes, both sides have their own truth in the matter. No such thing as universal truth.

So in YOUR world there is no such thing as truth at all. Truth is just an opinion. Interesting. That seems like how sociopaths and pedophiles would see it.

Tell that to the mother of a child that was raped by some guy who didn't believe it was a universal truth that it was wrong to rape children.

The rapist often doesn't think that it's wrong. The bank robber thinks that the rich deserve to be robbed...
Murder should be wrong always but the Incas... used to sacrifice humans to their god, thinking that it was ok to do.

 

[LittleNipper]

Like I said before, if you can't see how God has worked in your life, that's on you.

Really? Can you see how God has worked in my life or do you just assume he has?

Good question! You're up, dingbat.

Through the tests you have faced, Taz.

Meaning that the car accident that I was in was God's fault?

Not unless you want to be stupid about it.

What does that mean?

It means that you aren't serious and can't be serious.

That or you are truly stupid.

So what kind of test proves god?

The tests aren't to prove God, Taz.

You said god works in my life through tests, what tests?

The hard ones. The ones that are not pleasant for you.

How do you know they come from god?

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.



Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.



So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.



Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.



If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

Only fools have an expectation of fairness in this life. You must be one of them.

So you have never argued that were treated unfairly?

Yes, but didn't expect the other person to fix the problem, which they of course didn't.

Exactly because.... Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. Which is what we are told in Genesis. You just don't have the intellectual capacity to recognize that wisdom.

I can always count on you to come back with something inane and/or outright stupid.

The person in question knows they did something wrong but doesn't care to rationalize it or even care period and has decided a judge should decide, which was a major wrong step for this person, because, in fact, they were wrong on their assessment of how this would turn out legally, lol. Is that what happened in Genesis?

It totally looks like you believe in universal truth, Taz.

No such thing. Truth is subjective.

I wouldn't have expected you to see it any other way.

And yet when you described YOUR situation it wasn't.

Yes, both sides have their own truth in the matter. No such thing as universal truth.

So in YOUR world there is no such thing as truth at all. Truth is just an opinion. Interesting. That seems like how sociopaths and pedophiles would see it.

Tell that to the mother of a child that was raped by some guy who didn't believe it was a universal truth that it was wrong to rape children.

The rapist often doesn't think that it's wrong. The bank robber thinks that the rich deserve to be robbed...
Murder should be wrong always but the Incas... used to sacrifice humans to their god, thinking that it was ok to do.

God established the rules, both terrestrial and celestial. Man does what makes him feel good in the moment.

 

[ding]

Like I said before, if you can't see how God has worked in your life, that's on you.

Really? Can you see how God has worked in my life or do you just assume he has?

Good question! You're up, dingbat.

Through the tests you have faced, Taz.

Meaning that the car accident that I was in was God's fault?

Not unless you want to be stupid about it.

What does that mean?

It means that you aren't serious and can't be serious.

That or you are truly stupid.

So what kind of test proves god?

The tests aren't to prove God, Taz.

You said god works in my life through tests, what tests?

The hard ones. The ones that are not pleasant for you.

How do you know they come from god?

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.



Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.



So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.



Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.



If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

Only fools have an expectation of fairness in this life. You must be one of them.

So you have never argued that were treated unfairly?

Yes, but didn't expect the other person to fix the problem, which they of course didn't.

Exactly because.... Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. Which is what we are told in Genesis. You just don't have the intellectual capacity to recognize that wisdom.

I can always count on you to come back with something inane and/or outright stupid.

The person in question knows they did something wrong but doesn't care to rationalize it or even care period and has decided a judge should decide, which was a major wrong step for this person, because, in fact, they were wrong on their assessment of how this would turn out legally, lol. Is that what happened in Genesis?

It totally looks like you believe in universal truth, Taz.

No such thing. Truth is subjective.

I wouldn't have expected you to see it any other way.

And yet when you described YOUR situation it wasn't.

Yes, both sides have their own truth in the matter. No such thing as universal truth.

So in YOUR world there is no such thing as truth at all. Truth is just an opinion. Interesting. That seems like how sociopaths and pedophiles would see it.

Tell that to the mother of a child that was raped by some guy who didn't believe it was a universal truth that it was wrong to rape children.

The rapist often doesn't think that it's wrong. The bank robber thinks that the rich deserve to be robbed...
Murder should be wrong always but the Incas... used to sacrifice humans to their god, thinking that it was ok to do.

You are proving my point. In YOUR world there is no such thing as truth at all. Truth is just an opinion.

In my world it's different.

 

[Taz]

Like I said before, if you can't see how God has worked in your life, that's on you.

Really? Can you see how God has worked in my life or do you just assume he has?

Good question! You're up, dingbat.

Through the tests you have faced, Taz.

Meaning that the car accident that I was in was God's fault?

Not unless you want to be stupid about it.

What does that mean?

It means that you aren't serious and can't be serious.

That or you are truly stupid.

So what kind of test proves god?

The tests aren't to prove God, Taz.

You said god works in my life through tests, what tests?

The hard ones. The ones that are not pleasant for you.

How do you know they come from god?

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.



Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.



So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.



Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.



If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

Only fools have an expectation of fairness in this life. You must be one of them.

So you have never argued that were treated unfairly?

Yes, but didn't expect the other person to fix the problem, which they of course didn't.

Exactly because.... Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. Which is what we are told in Genesis. You just don't have the intellectual capacity to recognize that wisdom.

I can always count on you to come back with something inane and/or outright stupid.

The person in question knows they did something wrong but doesn't care to rationalize it or even care period and has decided a judge should decide, which was a major wrong step for this person, because, in fact, they were wrong on their assessment of how this would turn out legally, lol. Is that what happened in Genesis?

It totally looks like you believe in universal truth, Taz.

No such thing. Truth is subjective.

I wouldn't have expected you to see it any other way.

And yet when you described YOUR situation it wasn't.

Yes, both sides have their own truth in the matter. No such thing as universal truth.

So in YOUR world there is no such thing as truth at all. Truth is just an opinion. Interesting. That seems like how sociopaths and pedophiles would see it.

Tell that to the mother of a child that was raped by some guy who didn't believe it was a universal truth that it was wrong to rape children.

The rapist often doesn't think that it's wrong. The bank robber thinks that the rich deserve to be robbed...
Murder should be wrong always but the Incas... used to sacrifice humans to their god, thinking that it was ok to do.

God established the rules, both terrestrial and celestial. Man does what makes him feel good in the moment.

Where are the rules for earth?

 

[ding]

Like I said before, if you can't see how God has worked in your life, that's on you.

Really? Can you see how God has worked in my life or do you just assume he has?

Good question! You're up, dingbat.

Through the tests you have faced, Taz.

Meaning that the car accident that I was in was God's fault?

Not unless you want to be stupid about it.

What does that mean?

It means that you aren't serious and can't be serious.

That or you are truly stupid.

So what kind of test proves god?

The tests aren't to prove God, Taz.

You said god works in my life through tests, what tests?

The hard ones. The ones that are not pleasant for you.

How do you know they come from god?

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.



Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.



So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.



Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.



If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

Only fools have an expectation of fairness in this life. You must be one of them.

So you have never argued that were treated unfairly?

Yes, but didn't expect the other person to fix the problem, which they of course didn't.

Exactly because.... Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. Which is what we are told in Genesis. You just don't have the intellectual capacity to recognize that wisdom.

I can always count on you to come back with something inane and/or outright stupid.

The person in question knows they did something wrong but doesn't care to rationalize it or even care period and has decided a judge should decide, which was a major wrong step for this person, because, in fact, they were wrong on their assessment of how this would turn out legally, lol. Is that what happened in Genesis?

It totally looks like you believe in universal truth, Taz.

No such thing. Truth is subjective.

I wouldn't have expected you to see it any other way.

And yet when you described YOUR situation it wasn't.

Yes, both sides have their own truth in the matter. No such thing as universal truth.

So in YOUR world there is no such thing as truth at all. Truth is just an opinion. Interesting. That seems like how sociopaths and pedophiles would see it.

Tell that to the mother of a child that was raped by some guy who didn't believe it was a universal truth that it was wrong to rape children.

The rapist often doesn't think that it's wrong. The bank robber thinks that the rich deserve to be robbed...
Murder should be wrong always but the Incas... used to sacrifice humans to their god, thinking that it was ok to do.

God established the rules, both terrestrial and celestial. Man does what makes him feel good in the moment.

Where are the rules for earth?

That for all things there is a final state of fact.

 

[Taz]

Like I said before, if you can't see how God has worked in your life, that's on you.

Really? Can you see how God has worked in my life or do you just assume he has?

Good question! You're up, dingbat.

Through the tests you have faced, Taz.

Meaning that the car accident that I was in was God's fault?

Not unless you want to be stupid about it.

What does that mean?

It means that you aren't serious and can't be serious.

That or you are truly stupid.

So what kind of test proves god?

The tests aren't to prove God, Taz.

You said god works in my life through tests, what tests?

The hard ones. The ones that are not pleasant for you.

How do you know they come from god?

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.



Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.



So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.



Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.



If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

Only fools have an expectation of fairness in this life. You must be one of them.

So you have never argued that were treated unfairly?

Yes, but didn't expect the other person to fix the problem, which they of course didn't.

Exactly because.... Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. Which is what we are told in Genesis. You just don't have the intellectual capacity to recognize that wisdom.

I can always count on you to come back with something inane and/or outright stupid.

The person in question knows they did something wrong but doesn't care to rationalize it or even care period and has decided a judge should decide, which was a major wrong step for this person, because, in fact, they were wrong on their assessment of how this would turn out legally, lol. Is that what happened in Genesis?

It totally looks like you believe in universal truth, Taz.

No such thing. Truth is subjective.

I wouldn't have expected you to see it any other way.

And yet when you described YOUR situation it wasn't.

Yes, both sides have their own truth in the matter. No such thing as universal truth.

So in YOUR world there is no such thing as truth at all. Truth is just an opinion. Interesting. That seems like how sociopaths and pedophiles would see it.

Tell that to the mother of a child that was raped by some guy who didn't believe it was a universal truth that it was wrong to rape children.

The rapist often doesn't think that it's wrong. The bank robber thinks that the rich deserve to be robbed...
Murder should be wrong always but the Incas... used to sacrifice humans to their god, thinking that it was ok to do.

You are proving my point. In YOUR world there is no such thing as truth at all. Truth is just an opinion.

In my world it's different.

See? In MY world and in YOUR world, thanks for showing that truth is subjective.

 

[Taz]

Like I said before, if you can't see how God has worked in your life, that's on you.

Really? Can you see how God has worked in my life or do you just assume he has?

Good question! You're up, dingbat.

Through the tests you have faced, Taz.

Meaning that the car accident that I was in was God's fault?

Not unless you want to be stupid about it.

What does that mean?

It means that you aren't serious and can't be serious.

That or you are truly stupid.

So what kind of test proves god?

The tests aren't to prove God, Taz.

You said god works in my life through tests, what tests?

The hard ones. The ones that are not pleasant for you.

How do you know they come from god?

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.



Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.



So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.



Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.



If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

Only fools have an expectation of fairness in this life. You must be one of them.

So you have never argued that were treated unfairly?

Yes, but didn't expect the other person to fix the problem, which they of course didn't.

Exactly because.... Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. Which is what we are told in Genesis. You just don't have the intellectual capacity to recognize that wisdom.

I can always count on you to come back with something inane and/or outright stupid.

The person in question knows they did something wrong but doesn't care to rationalize it or even care period and has decided a judge should decide, which was a major wrong step for this person, because, in fact, they were wrong on their assessment of how this would turn out legally, lol. Is that what happened in Genesis?

It totally looks like you believe in universal truth, Taz.

No such thing. Truth is subjective.

I wouldn't have expected you to see it any other way.

And yet when you described YOUR situation it wasn't.

Yes, both sides have their own truth in the matter. No such thing as universal truth.

So in YOUR world there is no such thing as truth at all. Truth is just an opinion. Interesting. That seems like how sociopaths and pedophiles would see it.

Tell that to the mother of a child that was raped by some guy who didn't believe it was a universal truth that it was wrong to rape children.

The rapist often doesn't think that it's wrong. The bank robber thinks that the rich deserve to be robbed...
Murder should be wrong always but the Incas... used to sacrifice humans to their god, thinking that it was ok to do.

God established the rules, both terrestrial and celestial. Man does what makes him feel good in the moment.

Where are the rules for earth?

That for all things there is a final state of fact.

That doesn't even mean anything, please try again soon.

 

[ding]

Like I said before, if you can't see how God has worked in your life, that's on you.

Really? Can you see how God has worked in my life or do you just assume he has?

Good question! You're up, dingbat.

Through the tests you have faced, Taz.

Meaning that the car accident that I was in was God's fault?

Not unless you want to be stupid about it.

What does that mean?

It means that you aren't serious and can't be serious.

That or you are truly stupid.

So what kind of test proves god?

The tests aren't to prove God, Taz.

You said god works in my life through tests, what tests?

The hard ones. The ones that are not pleasant for you.

How do you know they come from god?

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.



Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.



So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.



Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.



If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

Only fools have an expectation of fairness in this life. You must be one of them.

So you have never argued that were treated unfairly?

Yes, but didn't expect the other person to fix the problem, which they of course didn't.

Exactly because.... Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. Which is what we are told in Genesis. You just don't have the intellectual capacity to recognize that wisdom.

I can always count on you to come back with something inane and/or outright stupid.

The person in question knows they did something wrong but doesn't care to rationalize it or even care period and has decided a judge should decide, which was a major wrong step for this person, because, in fact, they were wrong on their assessment of how this would turn out legally, lol. Is that what happened in Genesis?

It totally looks like you believe in universal truth, Taz.

No such thing. Truth is subjective.

I wouldn't have expected you to see it any other way.

And yet when you described YOUR situation it wasn't.

Yes, both sides have their own truth in the matter. No such thing as universal truth.

So in YOUR world there is no such thing as truth at all. Truth is just an opinion. Interesting. That seems like how sociopaths and pedophiles would see it.

Tell that to the mother of a child that was raped by some guy who didn't believe it was a universal truth that it was wrong to rape children.

The rapist often doesn't think that it's wrong. The bank robber thinks that the rich deserve to be robbed...
Murder should be wrong always but the Incas... used to sacrifice humans to their god, thinking that it was ok to do.

God established the rules, both terrestrial and celestial. Man does what makes him feel good in the moment.

Where are the rules for earth?

That for all things there is a final state of fact.

That doesn't even mean anything, please try again soon.

Sure it does. It means your sociopathic worldview is wrong.

 

[ding]

Like I said before, if you can't see how God has worked in your life, that's on you.

Really? Can you see how God has worked in my life or do you just assume he has?

Good question! You're up, dingbat.

Through the tests you have faced, Taz.

Meaning that the car accident that I was in was God's fault?

Not unless you want to be stupid about it.

What does that mean?

It means that you aren't serious and can't be serious.

That or you are truly stupid.

So what kind of test proves god?

The tests aren't to prove God, Taz.

You said god works in my life through tests, what tests?

The hard ones. The ones that are not pleasant for you.

How do you know they come from god?

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.



Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.



So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.



Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.



If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

Only fools have an expectation of fairness in this life. You must be one of them.

So you have never argued that were treated unfairly?

Yes, but didn't expect the other person to fix the problem, which they of course didn't.

Exactly because.... Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. Which is what we are told in Genesis. You just don't have the intellectual capacity to recognize that wisdom.

I can always count on you to come back with something inane and/or outright stupid.

The person in question knows they did something wrong but doesn't care to rationalize it or even care period and has decided a judge should decide, which was a major wrong step for this person, because, in fact, they were wrong on their assessment of how this would turn out legally, lol. Is that what happened in Genesis?

It totally looks like you believe in universal truth, Taz.

No such thing. Truth is subjective.

I wouldn't have expected you to see it any other way.

And yet when you described YOUR situation it wasn't.

Yes, both sides have their own truth in the matter. No such thing as universal truth.

So in YOUR world there is no such thing as truth at all. Truth is just an opinion. Interesting. That seems like how sociopaths and pedophiles would see it.

Tell that to the mother of a child that was raped by some guy who didn't believe it was a universal truth that it was wrong to rape children.

The rapist often doesn't think that it's wrong. The bank robber thinks that the rich deserve to be robbed...
Murder should be wrong always but the Incas... used to sacrifice humans to their god, thinking that it was ok to do.

You are proving my point. In YOUR world there is no such thing as truth at all. Truth is just an opinion.

In my world it's different.

See? In MY world and in YOUR world, thanks for showing that truth is subjective.

Only in your world, Taz. Because in your sociopathic world, there is no truth. Only opinions.

But in reality everything has a final state of fact.

 

[ding]

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.



Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.



So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.



Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.



If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

 

[Taz]

Like I said before, if you can't see how God has worked in your life, that's on you.

Really? Can you see how God has worked in my life or do you just assume he has?

Good question! You're up, dingbat.

Through the tests you have faced, Taz.

Meaning that the car accident that I was in was God's fault?

Not unless you want to be stupid about it.

What does that mean?

It means that you aren't serious and can't be serious.

That or you are truly stupid.

So what kind of test proves god?

The tests aren't to prove God, Taz.

You said god works in my life through tests, what tests?

The hard ones. The ones that are not pleasant for you.

How do you know they come from god?

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.



Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.



So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.



Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.



If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

Only fools have an expectation of fairness in this life. You must be one of them.

So you have never argued that were treated unfairly?

Yes, but didn't expect the other person to fix the problem, which they of course didn't.

Exactly because.... Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. Which is what we are told in Genesis. You just don't have the intellectual capacity to recognize that wisdom.

I can always count on you to come back with something inane and/or outright stupid.

The person in question knows they did something wrong but doesn't care to rationalize it or even care period and has decided a judge should decide, which was a major wrong step for this person, because, in fact, they were wrong on their assessment of how this would turn out legally, lol. Is that what happened in Genesis?

It totally looks like you believe in universal truth, Taz.

No such thing. Truth is subjective.

I wouldn't have expected you to see it any other way.

And yet when you described YOUR situation it wasn't.

Yes, both sides have their own truth in the matter. No such thing as universal truth.

So in YOUR world there is no such thing as truth at all. Truth is just an opinion. Interesting. That seems like how sociopaths and pedophiles would see it.

Tell that to the mother of a child that was raped by some guy who didn't believe it was a universal truth that it was wrong to rape children.

The rapist often doesn't think that it's wrong. The bank robber thinks that the rich deserve to be robbed...
Murder should be wrong always but the Incas... used to sacrifice humans to their god, thinking that it was ok to do.

God established the rules, both terrestrial and celestial. Man does what makes him feel good in the moment.

Where are the rules for earth?

That for all things there is a final state of fact.

That doesn't even mean anything, please try again soon.

Sure it does. It means your sociopathic worldview is wrong.

This is what I asked and you came back with unrelated nonsense. "Where are the rules for earth?"

 

[Taz]

Like I said before, if you can't see how God has worked in your life, that's on you.

Really? Can you see how God has worked in my life or do you just assume he has?

Good question! You're up, dingbat.

Through the tests you have faced, Taz.

Meaning that the car accident that I was in was God's fault?

Not unless you want to be stupid about it.

What does that mean?

It means that you aren't serious and can't be serious.

That or you are truly stupid.

So what kind of test proves god?

The tests aren't to prove God, Taz.

You said god works in my life through tests, what tests?

The hard ones. The ones that are not pleasant for you.

How do you know they come from god?

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.



Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.



So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.



Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.



If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

Only fools have an expectation of fairness in this life. You must be one of them.

So you have never argued that were treated unfairly?

Yes, but didn't expect the other person to fix the problem, which they of course didn't.

Exactly because.... Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. Which is what we are told in Genesis. You just don't have the intellectual capacity to recognize that wisdom.

I can always count on you to come back with something inane and/or outright stupid.

The person in question knows they did something wrong but doesn't care to rationalize it or even care period and has decided a judge should decide, which was a major wrong step for this person, because, in fact, they were wrong on their assessment of how this would turn out legally, lol. Is that what happened in Genesis?

It totally looks like you believe in universal truth, Taz.

No such thing. Truth is subjective.

I wouldn't have expected you to see it any other way.

And yet when you described YOUR situation it wasn't.

Yes, both sides have their own truth in the matter. No such thing as universal truth.

So in YOUR world there is no such thing as truth at all. Truth is just an opinion. Interesting. That seems like how sociopaths and pedophiles would see it.

Tell that to the mother of a child that was raped by some guy who didn't believe it was a universal truth that it was wrong to rape children.

The rapist often doesn't think that it's wrong. The bank robber thinks that the rich deserve to be robbed...
Murder should be wrong always but the Incas... used to sacrifice humans to their god, thinking that it was ok to do.

You are proving my point. In YOUR world there is no such thing as truth at all. Truth is just an opinion.

In my world it's different.

See? In MY world and in YOUR world, thanks for showing that truth is subjective.

Only in your world, Taz. Because in your sociopathic world, there is no truth. Only opinions.

But in reality everything has a final state of fact.

God is only an opinion, no actual proof yet.

 

[Taz]

Like I said before, if you can't see how God has worked in your life, that's on you.

Really? Can you see how God has worked in my life or do you just assume he has?

Good question! You're up, dingbat.

Through the tests you have faced, Taz.

Meaning that the car accident that I was in was God's fault?

Not unless you want to be stupid about it.

What does that mean?

It means that you aren't serious and can't be serious.

That or you are truly stupid.

So what kind of test proves god?

The tests aren't to prove God, Taz.

You said god works in my life through tests, what tests?

The hard ones. The ones that are not pleasant for you.

How do you know they come from god?

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.



Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.



So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.



Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.



If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

Only fools have an expectation of fairness in this life. You must be one of them.

So you have never argued that were treated unfairly?

Yes, but didn't expect the other person to fix the problem, which they of course didn't.

Exactly because.... Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. Which is what we are told in Genesis. You just don't have the intellectual capacity to recognize that wisdom.

I can always count on you to come back with something inane and/or outright stupid.

The person in question knows they did something wrong but doesn't care to rationalize it or even care period and has decided a judge should decide, which was a major wrong step for this person, because, in fact, they were wrong on their assessment of how this would turn out legally, lol. Is that what happened in Genesis?

It totally looks like you believe in universal truth, Taz.

No such thing. Truth is subjective.

I wouldn't have expected you to see it any other way.

And yet when you described YOUR situation it wasn't.

Yes, both sides have their own truth in the matter. No such thing as universal truth.

So, 1 + 1 may or may not equal 2?

We're talking about something else, try to keep up.

 

[ding]

Like I said before, if you can't see how God has worked in your life, that's on you.

Really? Can you see how God has worked in my life or do you just assume he has?

Good question! You're up, dingbat.

Through the tests you have faced, Taz.

Meaning that the car accident that I was in was God's fault?

Not unless you want to be stupid about it.

What does that mean?

It means that you aren't serious and can't be serious.

That or you are truly stupid.

So what kind of test proves god?

The tests aren't to prove God, Taz.

You said god works in my life through tests, what tests?

The hard ones. The ones that are not pleasant for you.

How do you know they come from god?

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.



Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.



So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.



Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.



If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

Only fools have an expectation of fairness in this life. You must be one of them.

So you have never argued that were treated unfairly?

Yes, but didn't expect the other person to fix the problem, which they of course didn't.

Exactly because.... Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. Which is what we are told in Genesis. You just don't have the intellectual capacity to recognize that wisdom.

I can always count on you to come back with something inane and/or outright stupid.

The person in question knows they did something wrong but doesn't care to rationalize it or even care period and has decided a judge should decide, which was a major wrong step for this person, because, in fact, they were wrong on their assessment of how this would turn out legally, lol. Is that what happened in Genesis?

It totally looks like you believe in universal truth, Taz.

No such thing. Truth is subjective.

I wouldn't have expected you to see it any other way.

And yet when you described YOUR situation it wasn't.

Yes, both sides have their own truth in the matter. No such thing as universal truth.

So in YOUR world there is no such thing as truth at all. Truth is just an opinion. Interesting. That seems like how sociopaths and pedophiles would see it.

Tell that to the mother of a child that was raped by some guy who didn't believe it was a universal truth that it was wrong to rape children.

The rapist often doesn't think that it's wrong. The bank robber thinks that the rich deserve to be robbed...
Murder should be wrong always but the Incas... used to sacrifice humans to their god, thinking that it was ok to do.

God established the rules, both terrestrial and celestial. Man does what makes him feel good in the moment.

Where are the rules for earth?

That for all things there is a final state of fact.

That doesn't even mean anything, please try again soon.

Sure it does. It means your sociopathic worldview is wrong.

This is what I asked and you came back with unrelated nonsense. "Where are the rules for earth?"

In your worldview there are no rules because you do not accept there is a final state of fact for all things. In your worldview there is no truth; there are only opinions.