The Origins of Monotheism

[Chris]

No, we don't. God's idea of morality was always obvious. Understanding God isn't a necessity. There is nothing to discover that we need.

If it were obvious then we'd all agree and we don't. Beyond some basic agreement it's morally wrong to murder, steal, lie, etc., each society has it's own moral customs and practices concerning those.

[Chris]

I was taught what moral choices should be. God's meaning isn't needed. His word is.

So morality is a social matter of customs, traditions, institutions. This is what I'm arguing when I say morals emerge from social interaction, that they are discovered and not willed, designed or created by man.

[Mister D]

On the not knowing, I think we agree. It's a matter of faith.


On Pascal's Wager, it's a philosophical argument long refuted. Lidke all the other philosophical arguments for God, ontological, cosmological, St Anselm's, something rather than nothing, Watchmaker, and so on. Because they are philosophical, limited to reason and logic.

Pascal's Wager is not a proof of God. There seems to be a widespread misconception regarding that.

[Chris]

Pascal's Wager is not a proof of God. There seems to be a widespread misconception regarding that.

It's a philosophical argument based on decision theory. It can be put in a simple logic matrix:

[Mister D]

It's a philosophical argument based on decision theory. It can be put in a simple logic matrix:

But it's not a proof of God. In fact, Pascal makes that clear.

[Chris]

But it's not a proof of God. In fact, Pascal makes that clear.

Oh, OK, true, it's not, it's an argument the safe bet is to believe.

[Captdon]

If it were obvious then we'd all agree and we don't. Beyond some basic agreement it's morally wrong to murder, steal, lie, etc., each society has it's own moral customs and practices concerning those.

It's in the Scriptures. That means nothing to you but it does to me.That what God morality is. It doesn't matter to me if you believe it r not.

[Captdon]

So morality is a social matter of customs, traditions, institutions. This is what I'm arguing when I say morals emerge from social interaction, that they are discovered and not willed, designed or created by man.

They were given to man. Man didn't discover them. They are the will of God.

I don't understand why you persist in trying to get me to agree with what I don't believe. No one is going to change what I believe.

I don't care what you believe only because it's not going to have any effect on my life or afterlife.

[Captdon]

On the not knowing, I think we agree. It's a matter of faith.


On Pascal's Wager, it's a philosophical argument long refuted. Lidke all the other philosophical arguments for God, ontological, cosmological, St Anselm's, something rather than nothing, Watchmaker, and so on. Because they are philosophical, limited to reason and logic.

Pascal can't be refuted. Until you die you can't know. It is a trick theory. It is true but proves nothing.

You do know I am not trying to change you. You have to decide by what you've heard. You have heard and that's all I need to know. I cant prove God. You can't disprove God. That's about it.

[Chris]

Pascal can't be refuted. Until you die you can't know. It is a trick theory. It is true but proves nothing.

You do know I am not trying to change you. You have to decide by what you've heard. You have heard and that's all I need to know. I cant prove God. You can't disprove God. That's about it.

He's easy to refute. Historically, the objections have been how do you know you picked the right God? And how do you know that God wants you to believe? In short, Pascal made unsupportable assumptions to fill in the logic matrix.

We already agree you can't know.

I don't challenge faith, only reason.