Another Christian Being Offered On The PC Alter?

[Tassman]

Again Thinker, how can morality be arbitrarily decided if it is grounded in His immutable nature? Again, it is not that God arbitrarily chooses not to lie, but that He can not lie. His very nature is truthfulness. That is not arbitrary. And again, how do you avoid a circular argument for your objective standard? Why is something good because your standard says that it is good?

This is purely a hypothetical argument. You have yet to show that your deity and his "immutable nature" exists. Also you have yet to show what you think his "grounded morality" consists of...all I've ever got from you is "read the NT", which is no answer.

[Sam]

The premises are bald assertions, i.e. logical fallacies. They cannot be shown to be true, therefore the conclusions cannot be shown to be true.

true (or likely to be true), in other words.

Valid, Sound Argument:

P1) Socrates is a living man.
P2) All living men have brains.
C1) Therefore, Socrates has a brain.


Valid, Unsound Argument:

P1) Socrates is a man.
P2) All men have red hair.
C1) Therefore, Socrates has red hair.


Ideally, the conclusion follows from the premises and the premises are accepted by all parties or are, at least, compelling.

[Tassman]

true (or likely to be true), in other words.

Valid, Sound Argument:

P1) Socrates is a living man.
P2) All living men have brains.
C1) Therefore, Socrates has a brain.


Valid, Unsound Argument:

P1) Socrates is a man.
P2) All men have red hair.
C1) Therefore, Socrates has red hair.


Ideally, the conclusion follows from the premises and the premises are accepted by all parties or are, at least, compelling.

I didn't say it wasn't a valid argument. I said that the premises were bald assertions and fallacies in that they are not accepted by all parties nor

[seer]

This is purely a hypothetical argument. You have yet to show that your deity and his "immutable nature" exists. Also you have yet to show what you think his "grounded morality" consists of...all I've ever got from you is "read the NT", which is no answer.

Of course it is a hypothetical argument, just as Thinker's argument for object moral values is hypothetical.

[The Thinker]

Again Thinker, how can morality be arbitrarily decided if it is grounded in His immutable nature? Again, it is not that God arbitrarily chooses not to lie, but that He can not lie. His very nature is truthfulness. That is not arbitrary. And again, how do you avoid a circular argument for your objective standard? Why is something good because your standard says that it is good?

I'll answer that question, once you directly answer mine and tell me why: Are you suggesting that the circular argument theists have to make to try and show that god is the source of good is a basic belief that is asserted without any evidence?

[The Thinker]

And you should deal with Joel's latest post #650

I already dealt with it in #657

[The Thinker]

true (or likely to be true), in other words.

Valid, Sound Argument:

P1) Socrates is a living man.
P2) All living men have brains.
C1) Therefore, Socrates has a brain.


Valid, Unsound Argument:

P1) Socrates is a man.
P2) All men have red hair.
C1) Therefore, Socrates has red hair.


Ideally, the conclusion follows from the premises and the premises are accepted by all parties or are, at least, compelling.

Is this a valid argument where the conclusion follows the premises:

P1: All men are mortals
P2: Jesus was a man
C: Therefore, Jesus was a mortal

?

[seer]

I'll answer that question, once you directly answer mine and tell me why: Are you suggesting that the circular argument theists have to make to try and show that god is the source of good is a basic belief that is asserted without any evidence?

No one is speaking of "evidence" Thinker, these are hypotheticals as Tass rightly said. But I'm asking you - if God's law flows from His immutable moral character how is that arbitrary? Do you agree that it would not be arbitrary? We can move on from there.

[Sam]

Is this a valid argument where the conclusion follows the premises:

P1: All men are mortals
P2: Jesus was a man
C: Therefore, Jesus was a mortal

?

Yes, of course. Jesus did die on that cross, after all!

There's a difference between a valid argument and a sound argument, let alone between a valid argument and a true argument. Think of validity as the first hurdle to clear: it lets people know that, at the baseline, the argument is coherent. It doesn't say anything about how strong the premises are or if the premises and conclusion are true. An invalid argument can have true premises and a true conclusion, even though the argument itself is nonsense:

P1) All cats are mammals.
P2) All mammals breathe air.
C1) Therefore, the sky is blue.

All true statements, but the argument is invalid (non sequitor).

Where the "Jesus was a mortal" argument is going is taking a conditionally true premise ("All men are mortals") and treating it as an absolutely true premise ("All men are necessarily mortal").

[The Thinker]

No one is speaking of "evidence" Thinker, these are hypotheticals as Tass rightly said. But I'm asking you - if God's law flows from His immutable moral character how is that arbitrary? Do you agree that it would not be arbitrary? We can move on from there.

If you admit to having no evidence than it is true that theists like you must make a circular argument. I think that's pretty apparent by now.

My view that morality exists independently of god is true whether or not god exists, so I'm not quite sure I agree with you that it is a hypothetical. That means that if god exists, at most, god's properties are the same as the objective moral values that exist independently of him. But no religion portrays a god that fits this bill.

[The Thinker]

Yes, of course. Jesus did die on that cross, after all!

There's a difference between a valid argument and a sound argument, let alone between a valid argument and a true argument. Think of validity as the first hurdle to clear: it lets people know that, at the baseline, the argument is coherent. It doesn't say anything about how strong the premises are or if the premises and conclusion are true. An invalid argument can have true premises and a true conclusion, even though the argument itself is nonsense:

P1) All cats are mammals.
P2) All mammals breathe air.
C1) Therefore, the sky is blue.

All true statements, but the argument is invalid (non sequitor).

Where the "Jesus was a mortal" argument is going is taking a conditionally true premise ("All men are mortals") and treating it as an absolutely true premise ("All men are necessarily mortal").

I aware of that. But remember that the definition of a mortal is, "a human being subject to death, often contrasted with a divine being." The premises of a logically valid argument don't have to be logically true, they just have to be conditionally true. The mainstream Christian would have to believe that the first premise is not true.

[Sam]

I aware of that. But remember that the definition of a mortal is, "a human being subject to death, often contrasted with a divine being." The premises of a logically valid argument don't have to be logically true, they just have to be conditionally true. The mainstream Christian would have to believe that the first premise is not true.

Well, the validity of the argument, which is what I believe we were talking about, would remain. As to the premise itself, the mainstream Christian need only believe that the first premise is generally true but is not an absolute or universal truth. The Christian will probably also point to Elijah and perhaps Enoch has examples where the mortality of a man was conditionally, not absolutely true.

[seer]

If you admit to having no evidence than it is true that theists like you must make a circular argument. I think that's pretty apparent by now.

My view that morality exists independently of god is true whether or not god exists, so I'm not quite sure I agree with you that it is a hypothetical. That means that if god exists, at most, god's properties are the same as the objective moral values that exist independently of him. But no religion portrays a god that fits this bill.

What are you taking about? Try and stay on task Thinker. Do you agree that if God's laws flow from His immutable moral character then they are not arbitrary. Give me a yes or no answer then we can move on.

[Joel]

Is this a valid argument where the conclusion follows the premises:

P1: All men are mortals
P2: Jesus was a man
C: Therefore, Jesus was a mortal

?

Yes.
What's your point?
And can you please acknowledge that my argument is internally consistent and non-circular, and that it has the moral standard being internal to God? Or show how it's not?

If you are merely questioning the truth of my premises P1 and P2, then that is beside the point. That would do nothing to show the argument to be invalid or circular, which is what you are trying to argue. Whether the premises are true, I have given you a valid, non-circular argument, in which the moral standard is internal to God. Yes?

The premises are bald assertions, i.e. logical fallacies. They cannot be shown to be true, therefore the conclusions cannot be shown to be true.

That's beside my point. My point is that my argument is internally consistent and non-circular, and that it has the moral standard being internal to God. Thinker claims that that is impossible, and I'm showing that it is possible.

[Tassman]

What are you taking about? Try and stay on task Thinker. Do you agree that if God's laws flow from His immutable moral character then they are not arbitrary. Give me a yes or no answer then we can move on.

That's beside my point. My point is that my argument is internally consistent and non-circular, and that it has the moral standard being internal to God. Thinker claims that that is impossible, and I'm showing that it is possible.