Another Christian Being Offered On The PC Alter?

[seer]

From what he's written, it seems like he does. If you know otherwise, please let me know.

Really? What did I say that leads you to that conclusion?

[Jaecp]

So, do you?

[lilpixieofterror]

Our opinions will rise or fall based on the evidence we have to back them up. I actually used your evidence against you, showing you how stupid you are.

No you didn't, you just showed why nobody should take you seriously. Thom Stark is a laughing stock and has been wrong on many many things before. Anybody, who quotes him as a serious source, should be laughed at and not taken seriously at all and you have yet to really give anybody (or myself) much of a reason to believe otherwise.

Haha. You're totally lost. If you are talking about your link, of course the author of your link doesn't say that slavery for foreigners could be forced and lifelong. That's because your link is written by an apologist who's trying to make Christianity look good. He cites from the book I quoted from, but he ignored the part about how slavery in the ANE wasn't mere indentured servitude for foreigners. In other words, your source is selectively quoting to try "a desperate gambit" in order to make biblical slavery appear nicer than it actually was. There's no diversion here, I directly addressed your attempt to refute biblical slavery and you have not addressed it other than claim your link doesn't agree with my link - but my link was cited by your author, but only in a part that addressed slavery among Jews, not foreigners. That's deliberate obfuscation.

In other words, you can't refute it and are just diving into character assassination, because you're too stupid to refute any of it. That was easy, thanks for showing why nobody should take you seriously. Now go ahead, please prove that my link is wrong or am I just going to have to wait another week to just get a string of logical fallacies? I'm waiting.

Nope. No diversion. I did directly answer your article and showed with one of its own sources that my original point, and the point Stark makes in his book is affirmed by it. You show me how slavery for foreigners was not by contrast, something that could be acquired through "capture in war, kidnapping, or force, unless protected by the local ruler or given resident alien status."

Yeah, it's a diversion because you can't refute the link and are trying a roundabout way to refute what was said because you're too stupid to refute it. Thanks for proving my point that nobody should take a word you say seriously.

[Tassman]

As does greed, cruelty and dominance - so what is your point?

We instinctively recognize these negative qualities to be anti-social and unhelpful for social cohesion and penalize them when possible. Conversely, the existence of the Golden Rule in virtually every human culture throughout human history is indicative that we humans instinctively view it as the model of desirable behaviour.

[Tassman]

The point on that discussion Tass was to show the strong Christian influence on the Founding of this nation, and to show that the Founders did not have any problem with showing preference to the Christian religion - even using tax dollars to support it.

The Founding Fathers carefully framed the US Constitution so as to exclude references to God, Jesus Christ, or Christianity. The Constitution does not state that the USA is an officially Christian nation.

But no person had the right to marry someone of the same sex. What legal reasoning could you possibly offer to discriminate against a man and his sister?

This does nothing Tass to tell us how rights become inviolable. None of this is sufficient - it is a mere assertion. When a primate takes the food and female from another primate, or a Nazi gasses Jewish children, where are your inviolable rights? Inviolable means incapable of being violated. You are not making sense.

prohibiting

That has nothing to do with anything. We agree, men can be wicked. My point is that in a godless universe inviolable rights are a legal fiction, a myth.

But they are demonstrably not a legal fiction or a myth otherwise we would adopt a c'est la vie approach to atrocities, not view them with horror.

[seer]

We instinctively recognize these negative qualities to be anti-social and unhelpful for social cohesion and penalize them when possible. Conversely, the existence of the Golden Rule in virtually every human culture throughout human history is indicative that we humans instinctively view it as the model of desirable behaviour.

Really? So do alpha apes recognize these as negative qualities? Did the Nazis or Communists recognize these as negative qualities? What the hell are you taking about?

[seer]

prohibiting

Inviolable means incapable of being violated; incorruptible; unassailable. So again when Nazis gas Jewish children, or when we kill unborn human beings where are their inviolable rights?

But they are demonstrably not a legal fiction or a myth otherwise we would adopt a c'est la vie approach to atrocities, not view them with horror.

I just proved that they are.

[seer]

So, do you?

There are a number of different divine command theories, if it leads to God's commands being arbitrary then no.

[The Thinker]

Then show us your source for objective moral law.

I claim moral values exist objectively and independently of god. There is no way that you can show otherwise, as the euthyphro dilemma demonstrates that the theist must either admit objective moral values exist independently of god, or makes a circular argument. There's no other way out of it.

[seer]

I claim moral values exist objectively and independently of god. There is no way that you can show otherwise, as the euthyphro dilemma demonstrates that the theist must either admit objective moral values exist independently of god, or makes a circular argument. There's no other way out of it.

Really, you just assert that objective moral values exist? No logical argument for how or where such moral values could exist independently? And like I asked - even if these values did exist what authority do they inherently have? What compels us to follow them?

And you never respondent to Joel's last post on the dilemma, so you haven't demonstrated anything.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post216377

[The Thinker]

Really, you just assert that objective moral values exist? No logical argument for how or where such moral values could exist independently? And like I asked - even if these values did exist what authority do they inherently have? What compels us to follow them?

And you never respondent to Joel's last post on the dilemma, so you haven't demonstrated anything.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post216377

No I don't just assert that they exist, I demonstrate logically, that via the euythyphro dilemma, that no theist can claim that objective moral values cannot exist independently of god. I don't care about authority. I'm not 8 years old. I don't need to do something only because my mommy tells me to. You apparently do. And under theism, nothing compels us to follow them either, since no one can know theism is true, even if it is true, and no one can know what god exists, even if theism is true. So your argument here is nonsense.

As far as Joel's post. I will respond to it. Thanks for linking. I'm not used to this thread format.

[seer]

No I don't just assert that they exist, I demonstrate logically, that via the euythyphro dilemma, that no theist can claim that objective moral values cannot exist independently of god.

What? This makes no sense. Even if the dilemma did present a problem for theists it does not follow that objective moral values could or do exist. You are making a positive claim that they do - it is on YOU to show how this is possible.

I don't care about authority. I'm not 8 years old. I don't need to do something only because my mommy tells me to. You apparently do.

OK, so basically your objective moral standard is useless. Thanks...

So your argument here is nonsense.

Except when you stand in Judgement.

[The Thinker]

Your third sentence does not follow from the first two. "Maximum suffering is good" is also logically consistent with your first two sentences.

No it doesn't. You have to redefine 'good' in order to get that.

That doesn't follow. If there exists an objective standard, there is no reason why that standard cannot be God.

Yes it does. You must demonstrate that an objective standard cannot exist independently of god. There is no reason why god could not co-exist with the standard.

It's not clear what you are asking.
If you are asking where is the ground of that truth, it is God.
If you are asking what is its efficient cause, the answer is that God is self-existent and has no external efficient cause.
If you are asking what is it in the nature of loving that implies that it is in the category "good", then you are really asking for a definition of "good". In which case you are getting into an area of moral philosophy that's not necessary for this discussion of the alleged "dilemma". We can discuss it if you want, but it is a different question. It is a difficult question because the answer is something we all naturally understand but is difficult to explain, perhaps like trying to describe sight to a man born blind or three spatial dimensions to a 2-dimensional creature.

I'm asking you to answer why loving is good in a way that is not circular. If you cannot do that, then you must admit loving is good independently of god.

If no being existed, nothing would be possible.
Where is the ground of the truths about what is possible and impossible? It must be somewhere.

If no being existed, things could still exist. Truths about what is possible and impossible don't have to be grounded somewhere. They could simply reflect the fact that somethings are impossible and it could not be any other way.

No, it's not by definition. It follows necessarily from basic premises about God, such as that God is the only necessary being. The laws of logic are necessary, so they must then have their reality in God.

That's beside the point. The goal of the "dilemma" is to show an inconsistency in Christian theology. The alleged "dilemma" fails at that goal.

The dilemma shows that the theist has only 1 of 2 responses: morality existed independently of god or is arbitrarily decided by god. That's it. The dilemma succeeds at showing this. Some theists do think morality is arbitrarily decided by god, so it doesn't necessarily have to be an inconsistency in the way you think of it.

For the Christian, nothing can exist independently of God's existence. Thus nothing can have any property at all independently of God's existence.

That's not a view all Christians hold. Some Christians think platonic forms can exist independently of god's existence. But that's another conversation.

This would do nothing to show that the "Euthyphro dilemma" is any problem for Christian theology. My goal in replying to you was to refute that it is a problem, not to prove that Christianity is true.

All I'll point out here is that if you as an atheist suppose that there exists something good, and suppose that that something's existence doesn't rely on the existence of a diety, it still does imply that there exists a moral standard, without which it would be meaningless to say that the something is good.[/QUOTE]

If the independent existence of an objective moral standard is a problem for Christianity, then yes, the dilemma is a problem for Christian theology.

I'm not supporting the divine command theory.

Sorry. I didn't mean to impute views on you. What ethical framework are you supporting then?

[The Thinker]

You could find them by their numbers just as easily as I can. But I'll go ahead and do the work for you:
My post: 234
Your reply: 250
My follow-up: 257

Sorry, I'm new to this format and I sometimes have trouble finding posts that have been responded to.

We could go into deep theories of moral philosophy, but I don't think it's necessary here.
You agree that there is an objective standard. Therefore, whatever that standard is, it is sufficient to determine what is right and wrong. Thus if slavery is objectively wrong (or not), it will suffice for our present purposes to say that it is so (or is not so) because that's what the objective standard says.
My point is simply that if that standard is God, then the Euthyphro dilemma raises no problem for Christians.

My point of course is that god is not that standard, and Christians are just asserting god is, and in order to do that they must make a circular argument. There is absolutely no good reasons for me to believe that your particular god, or any god, is that standard, and neither you, nor Seer, nor anyone else on this site can make a good argument showing this. I've debated this issue for years, and have never heard one. If you think you can make a positive argument showing so, please, by all means make one. I'd love to hear it.

(And Christians can get to the conclusion that the standard is God by agreeing that the Standard is eternally existent, and agreeing that nothing is eternally existent but God, so therefore the standard must be an attribute of God's nature.)

If that's the best you can do that's pathetic. You must demonstrate with facts and logic that the standard is eternally existent. You can start by answering why loving is good. It's relevant to this discussion.

Not exactly. I'm concluding (as the conclusion of reasoning) that "loving is good" is an attribute of God's nature.
Love is not good independently of the Standard (that would be absurd). The standard is God, so therefore love would not be good or bad independently of God.
There is still no internal inconsistency there.

You, as an atheist, no doubt object to the premise that "The standard is God." but that's not something I was debating with you. You can disagree with my premise while agreeing that I'm internally consistent on the matter.

Is god good because he has these properties or are these properties good because god has them?

The Euthyphro dilemma does not demand a justification for why things are good. It simply asks whether (1) things are good because God commands them (or does them or loves them, etc), or (2) God commands them (or does them or loves them etc) because they are good.
This poses no problem of internal consistency for the Christian, who can simply answer "no" to the first and "yes" to the second. The only worry about the second is that it makes God subject to an external standard. But that isn't true if the standard is internal to God. So no problem.

I ask why loving is good to demonstrate that you cannot show it to be good without either showing a reason independent of god, or making a circular argument. That's the point. The Euthyphro dilemma is just a conversation starter. The whole point is that you cannot demonstrate that the standard is internal to god without making circular arguments. It's impossible.

You say, "Suppose someone claims that racism is good because god is racist." So? I've already said "no" to (1), so you know I don't agree with that someone. Again, the Euthyphro dilemma poses no problem. By going with (2), the dilemma does not require me to justify that (or why) things are good, other than say that the standard is God.

Such justifications make for an interesting discussion, but a different one.

In my sentence that you quoted, the statement would not fall under (1), it would fall under (2), where your (2) is justified because "the standard is internal to God." So in my sentence, the example is saying that racism is good because the standard of racism being good "is internal to God." But you would never accept this. Likewise, I have no reason to accept that "loving is good" based on your justification that "the standard is internal to God." That's a non-answer.

I haven't addressed any of that. I'd love to discuss it, if we could just settle the Euthyphro thing.

Sure, you have two options: objective morality exists independently of god, or god arbitrarily makes up morality. You pick one and that's how this is settled.

[seer]

Sure, you have two options: objective morality exists independently of god, or god arbitrarily makes up morality. You pick one and that's how this is settled.

Thinker if God's law are grounded in His immutable moral character then how can that be arbitrary? For instance Scripture says that God is truth, that God can not lie. Not that He chooses not to lie but by nature He can not lie. He is truthful by nature - and can't not be otherwise. How is that arbitrary?