Best Evidence of God -- Inerrancy of the Bible

[Davian]

...
Have you never heard of hell?

Can you explain to me why a Christian murderer would be concerned about "Hell"?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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

And Matt already explained that he doesn't care what Christian apologists mean by it.

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.

I don't think my experience is lacking. I've seen this apologetic script played out too many times. You're no different.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

Hmmm... maybe you haven't kept abreast of the discussion on it... Yes, that's the "standard reply" of the Christian apologist. But I'm sure you're aware of what comes next?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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."

What makes God's say so an "objective" moral duty?

 

[Joshua260]

And Matt already explained that he doesn't care what Christian apologists mean by it.

Exactly. Matt "straw-mans", and that is only *one* reason why he is not a credible critic of the Christian faith.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Exactly. Matt "straw-mans", and that is only *one* reason why he is not a credible critic of the Christian faith.

What strawman? Saying that he doesn't care for the apologist's definition in no way misrepresents that definition.

 

[Joshua260]

What makes God's say so an "objective" moral duty?

It took me some time to understand your question. I think you meant to ask:
"What makes God's say-so an "objective" moral duty?"

Well, we must start talking specifically here, so I will slightly modify your statement to read as follows:
"What makes the Christian god's say-so an "objective" moral duty?"

So your question is similar to "What makes the standard for the meter, the standard for the meter?" As I'm sure you have heard from the "script" you keep mentioning, that the meter used to be defined by a particular metal bar that was kept in France, and all other meter sticks were compared to it to see if they correctly measured a meter. In the same way, the Christian god is defined as *the* standard for "goodness". Therefore, what he commands is good. Goodness is part of his nature.

Here's some backup for my response:
"The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes." Psalm 19:18

"For the word of the LORD [is] right; and all his works [are done] in truth." Psalm 33:4

BTW, my source for the quotes above are from the KJV.

I believe that's why Craig worded his first premise as follows:
"1. If God does not exist, then OMV&Ds do not exist."

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/morality-and-does-god-exist


By using the wording he does above, the premise is true no matter whether we are talking about the Christian god or any other.

But your question above asks what makes God's command the thing that we "ought to do", and therefore, I have to clarify that my response is in reference to the Christian god.

 

[Joshua260]

What strawman? Saying that he doesn't care for the apologist's definition in no way misrepresents that definition.

You said:
"Matt already explained that he doesn't care what Christian apologists mean by it."...not that he doesn't "care for" their definition.

So it is the meaning of the word that is being disputed in *our* exchange and not Matt's sentiments towards the usage by Christians. Matt simply refuted the argument talked about earlier by using a different meaning of "objective" in his response than the meaning of "objective" that was used by Christians in that context...thus "straw-man".

Straw-man: "an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument"
https://www.bing.com/search?q=definition+straw-man&FORM=EDGENA

For example, it is demonstrably true that Matt Dillahunty refutes Pascal's Wager by "straw-manning".

Again, in order for us to stop talking past each other, atheists should learn and remember that Christians use two different meanings for the word "objective" (depending on the context), and they are described 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*".

 

[Davian]

Exactly. Matt "straw-mans", and that is only *one* reason why he is not a credible critic of the Christian faith.

Have you ever called in to the Atheist Experience show?

 

[Davian]

It took me some time to understand your question. I think you meant to ask:
"What makes God's say-so an "objective" moral duty?"

Well, we must start talking specifically here, so I will slightly modify your statement to read as follows:
"What makes the Christian god's say-so an "objective" moral duty?"

So your question is similar to "What makes the standard for the meter, the standard for the meter?" As I'm sure you have heard from the "script" you keep mentioning, that the meter used to be defined by a particular metal bar that was kept in France, and all other meter sticks were compared to it to see if they correctly measured a meter. In the same way, the Christian god is defined as *the* standard for "goodness". Therefore, what he commands is good. Goodness is part of his nature.

Here's some backup for my response:
"The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes." Psalm 19:18

"For the word of the LORD [is] right; and all his works [are done] in truth." Psalm 33:4

BTW, my source for the quotes above are from the KJV.

I believe that's why Craig worded his first premise as follows:
"1. If God does not exist, then OMV&Ds do not exist."

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/morality-and-does-god-exist


By using the wording he does above, the premise is true no matter whether we are talking about the Christian god or any other.

But your question above asks what makes God's command the thing that we "ought to do", and therefore, I have to clarify that my response is in reference to the Christian god.

Your analogy fails, in that there is an actual thing that exists as a reference for the standard meter (currently, the distance traveled by light in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second).

Citing what you believe to exist as a reference fails to make your claims objective.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It took me some time to understand your question. I think you meant to ask:
"What makes God's say-so an "objective" moral duty?"

Well, we must start talking specifically here, so I will slightly modify your statement to read as follows:
"What makes the Christian god's say-so an "objective" moral duty?"

So your question is similar to "What makes the standard for the meter, the standard for the meter?" As I'm sure you have heard from the "script" you keep mentioning, that the meter used to be defined by a particular metal bar that was kept in France, and all other meter sticks were compared to it to see if they correctly measured a meter. In the same way, the Christian god is defined as *the* standard for "goodness". Therefore, what he commands is good. Goodness is part of his nature.

So is something good because it is part of his nature or is it part of his nature because it is good? You've simply shifted the question from God's say-so to his nature.

Here's some backup for my response:
"The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes." Psalm 19:18

"For the word of the LORD [is] right; and all his works [are done] in truth." Psalm 33:4

BTW, my source for the quotes above are from the KJV.

You think that constitutes "backup" for your response?

I believe that's why Craig worded his first premise as follows:
"1. If God does not exist, then OMV&Ds do not exist."

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/morality-and-does-god-exist


By using the wording he does above, the premise is true no matter whether we are talking about the Christian god or any other.

That premise hasn't been supported, and we already have good reasons to doubt it.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You said:
"Matt already explained that he doesn't care what Christian apologists mean by it."...not that he doesn't "care for" their definition.

So it is the meaning of the word that is being disputed in *our* exchange and not Matt's sentiments towards the usage by Christians. Matt simply refuted the argument talked about earlier by using a different meaning of "objective" in his response than the meaning of "objective" that was used by Christians in that context...thus "straw-man".

No, Matt rejected the definition being offered, noting that he doesn't care for it. However, even using the caller's definition, the argument can be (and was) addressed.

Like Davian, I am curious: have you ever called in to the Atheist Experience? Are you a frequent caller, like Mark from the Austin Stone?

For example, it is demonstrably true that Matt Dillahunty refutes Pascal's Wager by "straw-manning".

Yes, you and Jeremy are fond of saying that much.

Again, in order for us to stop talking past each other, atheists should learn and remember that Christians use two different meanings for the word "objective" (depending on the context), and they are described 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*".

I already asked you whether the second definition also means that the act in question is something we should do no matter what any supernatural agent thinks. I'm still waiting for a response.

 

[Davian]

Well WLC is beyond dumb then.

Perhaps, but he sells a lots of books and inspires wannabes. Joshua260/a.p. looks to me as someone that is on that path.

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.

But confidence in the "truth" is the currency of the religious, even when their "truths" are inconsistent and/or contradictory. Hence why I say that I do not seek truth, but accurate descriptions of reality.

 

[Joshua260]

So is something good because it is part of his nature or is it part of his nature because it is good? You've simply shifted the question from God's say-so to his nature.

Nope, no shifting has taken place. Please cite specifically where I said that something is good just because God said so. You can't. It sounds like you still do not understand the Christian view. It is not 1) that something is good simply because God arbitrarily calls it good (that's just what you just accused me of doing), nor 2) that goodness is some part of a moral code that is superior to God. Again, the Christian view is that God's nature *is* the standard of goodness.

You think that constitutes "backup" for your response?

Umm, yes. Lol!! If I'm going to assert that the Christian view is that our god's nature is the standard of goodness, then it is logical for me to provide backup for that assertion from the source that describes the Christian god, which is the bible. It's frankly silly of you to question this!!

That premise hasn't been supported, and we already have good reasons to doubt it.

I have not presented the moral argument in this thread...I was only citing that premise to demonstrate to you that if the premise is true, then it would be true for *all* gods. You're in such a hurry to argue against a Christian that you didn't even take the time to understand my point in that section!

 

[Joshua260]

No, Matt rejected the definition being offered, noting that he doesn't care for it. However, even using the caller's definition, the argument can be (and was) addressed.

Like Davian, I am curious: have you ever called in to the Atheist Experience? Are you a frequent caller, like Mark from the Austin Stone?

Yes, you and Jeremy are fond of saying that much.

No, I have not called into Matt's show, and as I told you before, more than once, I am not Jeremy. You've accused me several times of being disingenuous regarding various subjects.

I'm one of those who tried to live by the saying "If you can't say anything nice about somebody, then don't say anything at all." It is for this reason that I try to say as little about Matt Dillahunty as possible. I'm sure he's one of your heroes, but I've seen lots of his videos, and I'm not impressed by him at all. He constantly uses Ad Hominem attacks as a strategy in trying to win debates, and he straw-mans a lot. He's not really that good. He seems to be using the Richard Dawkins playbook...

"Richard Dawkins himself has advocated the atheist should use ridicule and mockery as one of their chief weapons against Christians. “Don't interact with their arguments,” he advises, “instead just mock them and ridicule them.”"

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/dawkins-gets-eastwooded#ixzz3ysQOmIFp

I already asked you whether the second definition also means that the act in question is something we should do no matter what any supernatural agent thinks. I'm still waiting for a response.

It is not the Christian view that there is a moral code that is superior to God.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Nope, no shifting has taken place. Please cite specifically where I said that something is good just because God said so. You can't. It sounds like you still do not understand the Christian view. It is not 1) that something is good simply because God arbitrarily calls it good (that's just what you just accused me of doing), nor 2) that goodness is some part of a moral code that is superior to God. Again, the Christian view is that God's nature *is* the standard of goodness.

You're dodging the question: is something good because it is part of his nature or is it part of his nature because it is good?

Umm, yes. Lol!! If I'm going to assert that the Christian view is that our god's nature is the standard of goodness, then it is logical for me to provide backup for that assertion from the source that describes the Christian god, which is the bible. It's frankly silly of you to question this!!

You can quote the Bible all you like. But if you do, know that I find your "backup" as convincing as that of a Muslim apologist who supports his claims by quoting from the Quran.

I have not presented the moral argument in this thread...I was only citing that premise to demonstrate to you that if the premise is true, then it would be true for *all* gods. You're in such a hurry to argue against a Christian that you didn't even take the time to understand my point in that section!

Even then, I don't think that's right. It only pertains to gods that are somehow relevant to morality.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No, I have not called into Matt's show, and as I told you before, more than once, I am not Jeremy.

Where in this thread did I say that you were Jeremy? You are answering a question I did not ask. Curious...

You've accused me several times of being disingenuous regarding various subjects.

Well, you still haven't answered my question about plagiarism.

"Richard Dawkins himself has advocated the atheist should use ridicule and mockery as one of their chief weapons against Christians. “Don't interact with their arguments,” he advises, “instead just mock them and ridicule them.”"

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/dawkins-gets-eastwooded#ixzz3ysQOmIFp

I wonder if Craig has somehow managed to install bots onto CF that constantly link to his website. If your apologetics is entirely derivative of his (as it seems to be), then why not just furnish a link to Faithable Reason with an explanatory note attached, "Here are all my arguments."

It is not the Christian view that there is a moral code that is superior to God.

That doesn't answer my question. Could you elaborate further?

 

[High Fidelity]

Again, the Christian view is that God's nature *is* the standard of goodness.

Exactly.

God doesn't do things because they're just. They're just because He does them.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Exactly.

God doesn't do things because they're just. They're just because He does them.

So anything that he does simply becomes just by virtue of him doing it?

 

[High Fidelity]

So anything that he does simply becomes just by virtue of him doing it?

Yes. By virtue of Him being a just God.