http://www.strongatheism.net/library...c_god_paradox/
This argument seems completely sound, at first. However, if put under scrutiny, one will realize that the entire argument falls flat, due to being based on an unproven premise:
"We do things because we think we should do them – because they are moral. So to expand the question, why do we need morality? We have values because we need to pursue specific goals in order to further our life. We need morality because we are faced with choices and we have to manage our resources – be they money, time, social relationships, whatever."
The author asserts that things such as morality, the desire to be creative, the desire for love, and the such, are completely the results of external stimuli, such as time/resource managment, social conditioning, and limits or lack of limits. What he fails to do is actually prove this premise, which he essentially whitewashes as true be default.
Indeed, under the theistic worldview, things such as moral values, love, creativity, ect. are not things that are affected by any sort of external stimuli, such as the limits, or lack of limits, or potentiality, or lack of potentiality, and such, but are innate, inward parts of being itself.
So, unless he can prove his materialistic viewpoint of morality and desires that validates the starting premise, his argument seems to be, for all intents and purposes, refuted.
This argument seems completely sound, at first. However, if put under scrutiny, one will realize that the entire argument falls flat, due to being based on an unproven premise:
"We do things because we think we should do them – because they are moral. So to expand the question, why do we need morality? We have values because we need to pursue specific goals in order to further our life. We need morality because we are faced with choices and we have to manage our resources – be they money, time, social relationships, whatever."
The author asserts that things such as morality, the desire to be creative, the desire for love, and the such, are completely the results of external stimuli, such as time/resource managment, social conditioning, and limits or lack of limits. What he fails to do is actually prove this premise, which he essentially whitewashes as true be default.
Indeed, under the theistic worldview, things such as moral values, love, creativity, ect. are not things that are affected by any sort of external stimuli, such as the limits, or lack of limits, or potentiality, or lack of potentiality, and such, but are innate, inward parts of being itself.
So, unless he can prove his materialistic viewpoint of morality and desires that validates the starting premise, his argument seems to be, for all intents and purposes, refuted.
Comment