Best Evidence of God -- Inerrancy of the Bible

[Archaeopteryx]

We're talking past each other because you (and Matt Dillahunty) are equivocating on the use of the word "objective".

In what way is Matt equivocating?

I defined the two most common Christian uses of the word "objective" earlier, but reworded them below:
1. Objective moral ought = could mean "*in this particular situation*, the act in question is something we should do".
2. Objective moral ought = could mean, in a different context such as referring to OMV&Ds, "the act in question is something we should do, *not matter what any human thinks*".

Now it seems that you're equivocating. In my experience, when Christian apologists use the word "objective," they are specifically referring to the dictates of God, since for them morality can only be "objective" if it comes from a divine source. Do you intend on using the definitions given above for the remainder of the discussion or is this just a bait-and-switch?

 

[Joshua260]

So how does asking whether someone thinks, "Raping little girls for fun is wrong, no matter what any human thinks!" help your argument that the relevant moral is objective, if, as you've pointed out, it's clearly a subjective statement? It may even be that all humans feel that way (I suspect they don't), but summing subjective doesn't make objective.

As Matt said in the video, if we agree on some common (necessarily subjective) criterion, such as 'wellbeing', as a basis or goal of our moral framework, we can then make objective evaluations of actions, but they are only objective with respect to that common (subjective) framework.

While I agree with Matt that 'wellbeing' is a workable criterion, I disagree with his suggestion that people that don't have a comparable criterion will 'go away'; recorded history is a sequence of cultures and societies that applied no such criterion to the bulk of the population. Not having it seems to have been a successful strategy for human kind - if unpleasant for many individuals. I could point out that if you're looking for objective behavioural criteria, a study of what has made homo sapiens such a success as a species would be the obvious place to look - but I doubt you'd find those criteria to your taste

Yowser!! That's a whole bunch of words there, and you didn't even answer my question:
"So are you correct one day and wrong the next? Or is there *no* day in which you are correct about whether it is wrong to rape little girls?"

I'm also a little surprised that no one has mentioned the Euthyphro Dilemma during this discussion, despite a few hints (and Matt's explication in the video) - or did someone mention it and I missed it? It seems relevant...

Maybe no one mentioned it because it's beyond ridiculous to even bring that up nowadays. But maybe you haven't kept abreast of the discussion on it, so I'll explain...As you know, the Euthyphro Dilemma proposes a dilemma between two options:

1. Is something good because God says it is good? or
2. Does God say something is good because it is good.

As has been explained numerous times, this is a false dilemma. Neither of the two options proposed is the Christian view, and neither is taught in the bible. We do not believe that 1) God arbitrarily declares that something is good and we do not believe that 2) there is a standard of goodness that exists independent of God. Rather, we believe that God's nature itself is the standard of goodness.

 

[Joshua260]

The problem is that you're asking me to make a factual statement about my opinions. I won't do that. If it doesn't matter "wait people think" then is raping little girls still immoral if there were no people anymore? If everyone was dead and gone...is rape still immoral?

The best answer I can give you is this...

In my opinion, raping little girls is always wrong. Does that answer your question?

Nope. I'm not looking for an opinion, but a truth claim. If you are not sure what the truth is, then why not agree with option 3?

3. "Raping little girls for fun *may or may not* be wrong."

 

[Joshua260]

In what way is Matt equivocating?

I explained this. Because he is using a different definition of "objective" than what is meant by Christians in that context.

Now it seems that you're equivocating. In my experience, when Christian apologists use the word "objective," they are specifically referring to the dictates of God, since for them morality can only be "objective" if it comes from a divine source. Do you intend on using the definitions given above for the remainder of the discussion or is this just a bait-and-switch?

Well then your experience is lacking. Christians use the word "objective" in more than one context, and I explained the different contexts above. It would help us not talk past each other if you (and Matt Dillahunty) would learn the difference.

 

[Joshua260]

I don't agree...the way I see it, "murder" is a legal term. It can be viewed as both morally wrong or right...depending on circumstance. Don't believe me? Well consider this...

If you were to join the army, and they were to send you off to some foreign nation, for whatever reason, and you were to kill some people there (any people, enemy combatants or not) is it murder?

Of course, since your government sent you there to do that particular job, when you return you won't be charged with murder (assuming that you followed the rules the army laid out for you) but under the laws of the nation you went to and killed someone in...you're a murderer. I've never heard of any nation which views things otherwise. It's never going to be "legal" to go to another nation and kill their people. Now, they may make exceptions for you regarding the sentencing...or they may not. They may hold you prisoner (if you get captured) in hopes of trading you for their soldiers who were taken prisoner. They may execute you on the spot. Put yourself in their shoes...if a foreign army came to the U.S. and killed people here, would you see it as murder? I would.

More importantly, I imagine the guy getting killed sees it that way too. It's not as if he's laying in the street dying and thinking "well at least it's wartime...so this isn't really murder (or morally wrong)". No, to him you're just as bad as a criminal who broke into his house and shot him (maybe you're worse).

Yet, most people don't see this as wrong morally. They think that as long as our reasons for going to that nation and murdering its people are justified...then it's morally right. They probably don't even consider the fact that to the people getting killed...its murder.

So murder is really a legal term...not one that refers to morality. How many times on this site alone have you seen people claim that abortion is murder? Surely, they know it isn't....but they, like you, have conflated morality with legality.

You're gotten yourself confused in your reply above.

Yes, "murder" *is* a legal term, and the question we are debating is "*who's law* is one breaking when committing murder?" That's the question that we are debating!! In your reply above, you're just discussing people's subjective evaluations about whether or not a killing is a murder, but no one is claiming that there can't be more than one human evaluation of a killing. The question is, is there a *correct* evaluation?

You seem to be indicating that your reply to this question would be "no", you are "unclear", or that you refuse to make a truth claim either way. So again, it sounds like you would agree with the last option I offered earlier:

3. "Raping little girls for fun *may or may not* be wrong."

 

[Ana the Ist]

Nope. I'm not looking for an opinion, but a truth claim. If you are not sure what the truth is, then why not agree with option 3?

3. "Raping little girls for fun *may or may not* be wrong."

Because it's still a truth claim. A truth that you can't prove nor show how you arrived at. In what significant way is it different from an opinion?

 

[Ana the Ist]

You're gotten yourself confused in your reply above.

Yes, "murder" *is* a legal term, and the question we are debating is "*who's law* is one breaking when committing murder?" That's the question that we are debating!!

The law of the nation you commit the murder in. That's usually how it works.

 

[Davian]

Because it's still a truth claim. A truth that you can't prove nor show how you arrived at. In what significant way is it different from an opinion?

For the WLC/a.p./Joshua260 script to work, you must state it as a truth claim.

 

[Joshua260]

Because it's still a truth claim. A truth that you can't prove nor show how you arrived at. In what significant way is it different from an opinion?

Nice attempt at dodging, but it won't work. Actually, the statement "Raping little girls for fun *may or may not* be wrong" is a truth claim that *can* be shown to be true by the Law of Non-contradiction. The Law of Non-contradiction essentially boils down to this...that opposite assertions cannot both be true at the same time. So if it is 1) unclear to you whether raping girls for fun is wrong, or 2) you simply refuse to declare whether raping little girls for fun is wrong or not, you can most certainly, and justifiably declare the last option:

3. "Raping little girls for fun *may or (not and) may not* be wrong."

Logically (that is, if you want to continue arguing logically), you *have* to concur with one of the three options I provided. Here they are again for your reference:

1. "Raping little girls for fun *is* wrong no matter what any human thinks."
2. "Raping little girls for fun *is not* wrong no matter what any human thinks."
3. "Raping little girls for fun *may or may not* be wrong."

 

[Ana the Ist]

Nice attempt at dodging, but it won't work. Actually, the statement "Raping little girls for fun *may or may not* be wrong" is a truth claim that *can* be shown to be true by the Law of Non-contradiction. The Law of Non-contradiction essentially boils down to this...that opposite assertions cannot both be true at the same time. So if it is 1) unclear to you whether raping girls for fun is wrong, or 2) you simply refuse to declare whether raping little girls for fun is wrong or not, you can most certainly, and justifiably declare the last option:

3. "Raping little girls for fun *may or (not and) may not* be wrong."

Logically (that is, if you want to continue arguing logically), you *have* to concur with one of the three options I provided. Here they are again for your reference:

1. "Raping little girls for fun *is* wrong no matter what any human thinks."
2. "Raping little girls for fun *is not* wrong no matter what any human thinks."
3. "Raping little girls for fun *may or may not* be wrong."

The law of non-contradiction doesn't apply to opinions held by two different people lol.

If you tell me that vanilla tastes good...and I tell you that vanilla tastes bad...is one of us wrong? Or are we both right?

 

[Davian]

I prefer to analyze an argument more fairly and methodically.

Or, as observed, scripted.

Here's the argument as I presented it:

1. It is just as likely that the Christian God exists as not.

I have no idea what you mean by this, or what you base it on. Is a literal Adam and Eve as likely as not? Is a biblical-global-flood as likely as not? Is evolutionary theory as likely as not? Is modern cosmology as likely as not?

2. If 1, then it is better to believe in the Christian God and be wrong than not to believe in the Christian God and be wrong.

As you still of the opinion that belief is a conscious choice?

3. Therefore, it is better to believe in the Christian God than not.

In order to keep from shot-gunning our evaluation of this argument again, first I'd like for you to tell me whether you believe the argument above is valid. In other words, does the conclusion follow from the premises (whether they or true or not)?

I would say that your argument has blown a gasket and is broken down at the side of the road.

 

[Ana the Ist]

For the WLC/a.p./Joshua260 script to work, you must state it as a truth claim.

Well WLC is beyond dumb then. Truth claims that cannot be proven, nor is there a methodology for how they are created, are basically useless as truth claims.

It's like if I said that magical bunnies live in my backyard and only come out when no one looks.

Can I prove this? No.

Can I tell you how I learned/discovered this? No.

Is that truth claim of any use to anyone? No...unless you want to believe in magical bunnies.

 

[Joshua260]

The law of the nation you commit the murder in. That's usually how it works.

That does not discount the existence of God's law, and you know full well that is what the debate is about...Whether one who kills has disobeyed an *objective* moral duty (meaning is it wrong no matter what any human thinks), as in God commanding his creation "Thou shalt not murder."

 

[Ana the Ist]

That does not discount the existence of God's law, and you know full well that is what the debate is about...Whether one who kills has disobeyed an *objective* moral duty (meaning is it wrong no matter what any human thinks), as in God commanding his creation "Thou shalt not murder."

Well "god's law" doesn't really specify which nation has it right when it comes to the legal definition of murder, does he? God doesn't appear to enforce this law either...

So I'm more concerned with real laws that actually exist.

 

[Joshua260]

Well WLC is beyond dumb then. Truth claims that cannot be proven, nor is there a methodology for how they are created, are basically useless as truth claims.

It's like if I said that magical bunnies live in my backyard and only come out when no one looks.

Can I prove this? No.

Can I tell you how I learned/discovered this? No.

Is that truth claim of any use to anyone? No...unless you want to believe in magical bunnies.

Interesting. Would you make the truth claim that the outside world exists? What evidence do you act on your belief that everything you see, smell, taste, hear, and feel really exists? What evidence do you cite that the world existed longer than five minutes ago? What evidence do you cite that you are really not just a brain in a vat? After all, you could really be imagining all of this, right?
These are all truth claims that people make every day. Are they useless truth claims?

 

[Joshua260]

Well "god's law" doesn't really specify which nation has it right when it comes to the legal definition of murder, does he?

You're inability to discern whether raping little girls for fun is wrong in no way invalidates the truth that it *is* wrong no matter what any human thinks.

God doesn't appear to enforce this law either...

Have you never heard of hell?

 

[Joshua260]

The law of non-contradiction doesn't apply to opinions held by two different people lol.

If you tell me that vanilla tastes good...and I tell you that vanilla tastes bad...is one of us wrong? Or are we both right?

But the law of non-contradiction *does* apply to a discussion about whether or not OMV&Ds exist!! They either exist or not...both assertions cannot both be true at the same time. Is that not correct? So you are perfectly justified in concurring with option #3 if you so desire, which I would think would be an easy choice for you. Logically, you *must* concur with one of the following:

1. "Raping little girls for fun *is* wrong no matter what any human thinks."
2. "Raping little girls for fun *is not* wrong no matter what any human thinks."
3. "Raping little girls for fun *may or may not* be wrong."

 

[Ana the Ist]

But the law of non-contradiction *does* apply to a discussion about whether or not OMV&Ds exist!! They either exist or not...both assertions cannot both be true at the same time. Is that not correct?

You're right, they either exist or they don't...

Since you can't prove any of them true...and since you can't explain how you arrive at them...which do you think is logically true? That they exist or that they don't exist?

Hint- it's not the option where they exist.

 

[Joshua260]

You're right, they either exist or they don't...

Thank you. So your position is that:
3. "Raping little girls for fun *may or may not* be wrong."

Thanks for your participation in this conversation. I appreciate it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Thank you. So your position is that:
3. "Raping little girls for fun *may or may not* be wrong."

Thanks for your participation in this conversation. I appreciate it.

That's not my position.

Here's the problem, your whole question rests on two completely unfounded assumptions.

1. That objective morals exist.

2. That you know what they are (and can present them as truth statements).

You've never given me, nor anyone else, any reason to believe in these two assumptions. You don't have any reason to believe in them yourself. I'm not going along with some ridiculous question that's based upon assumptions that you hold.

If you want me to answer your question, you'll have to prove objective morals exist and that you know what they are. Until then (and we both know that time won't ever come) you're just giving your opinion...like everyone else.