Best Evidence of God -- Inerrancy of the Bible

[Archaeopteryx]

Yes. By virtue of Him being a just God.

How is he a "just God"? Such an evaluation implies that you are judging his actions according to some other standard or criteria. Yet going by what you said previously, whatever he does automatically becomes "just," in which case calling him a "just God" is equivalent to saying that he does whatever he does.

 

[High Fidelity]

How is he a "just God"? Such an evaluation implies that you are judging his actions according to some other standard or criteria. Yet going by what you said previously, whatever he does automatically becomes "just," in which case calling him a "just God" is equivalent to saying that he does whatever he does.

That's not a question for a short reply at 03:45. I'll reply to this tomorrow

 

[Davian]

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

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks".

While we are on that subject, are you the same person using the account of "anonymous person"?

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.

Can you cite any recent examples?

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

You seem to promote this site exclusively. Do you have any financial interest in WLC's business?

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

Your opinion is noted.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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

This is a rather simplistic representation - the idea is to distinguish between God being the source of morality or endorsing some independent or 'external' morality.

... we believe that God's nature itself is the standard of goodness.

This appears to be a restatement of horn 1 of the ED, as it has the same problems - for example, if we assume that God's actions reflect God's nature (what else does 'nature' mean in this context?), then we can propose a syllogism:

P1 Actions consistent with God's nature are good (moral), while actions inconsistent with God's nature are bad (immoral).
P2. God's actions are always consistent with God's nature.
P3. From 1 & 2, God's actions are always good (moral).
P4. God's actions are best evidenced in scripture (the Bible).
C. From P3 & P4, it is good (moral) to perform the actions attributed to God in the Bible.

It seems to me that many of the actions performed by God in the Bible would not generally be approved as good or moral if performed by us, which suggests that what is moral for God is not necessarily moral for man - in which case God is not the moral standard of goodness for man.

The circularity of the claim is troubling: God's nature is the standard of goodness - why? because good is morally better than evil; and good is morally better than evil not because of some external, independent morality (horn 2 of ED), but because goodness is the character of God's nature...

If the standard you use to assess God's moral goodness is God, it's a meaningless assessment. To say 'God is good' only means 'God is himself' and 'God reveals what is good' only means 'God reveals whatever he reveals'. You can apply this to anyone or anything: e.g. Trump is morally good; what does it mean to be morally good? it means to have the moral character of Trump; but why does it mean this? because Trump is morally good...

So being morally good means God has the moral character of Himself, whatever that may be. This doesn't imply anything about God or his concern for our wellbeing, it just means God is Himself. His commands & actions could cause untold harm and suffering (as in the Bible) and still be good by definition. He could have hatred & contempt for all beings and still be 'good' by definition.

It seems to me that 'goodness' in the context 'God is the standard of goodness', is meaningless or redundant; God is the standard of Himself, whatever that is - effectively a meaningless tautology.

E.T.A. Incidentally, I think that raping little girls for fun is wrong, no matter what anyone else thinks; but that's just my personal opinion.

 

[quatona]

Really, I'm just looking for one of the following answers:
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."

Well, sorry, you won´t get an answer when the premise of the question isn´t agreed upon.

It doesn't have to get any more complicated than that.

Actually, it is even less complicated:
When you ask me to tell you what I think, the qualifier "no matter what any human thinks" forbids itself.

Btw. it´s interesting that this qualifier suddenly disappears in #3.

 

[quatona]

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

No. Matt has clearly given and explained the definition of "objective" he is working from, and he is using it consistently.

 

[quatona]

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."

a. Why is "no matter what any human thinks" missing in the third option?
b. Where´s the option "It is right in some cases and wrong in other cases no matter what any human thinks?" (I.e. "Even though there is an objective morality, there is no absolute about raping little girls")
and, first of all (because that would be my answer), c. Where´s the option "I don´t know that there is a moral right or wrong no matter what any human thinks - despite the fact that some humans claim there is"?

 

[Joshua260]

The circularity of the claim is troubling: God's nature is the standard of goodness - why? because good is morally better than evil; and good is morally better than evil not because of some external, independent morality (horn 2 of ED), but because goodness is the character of God's nature...

This is where your logic fails. It is not circular because the claim that "God's nature is the standard of goodness" is based on how God's nature is defined in the bible, and I've cited some bible versus earlier in this thread for reference.

E.T.A. Incidentally, I think that raping little girls for fun is wrong, no matter what anyone else thinks; but that's just my personal opinion.

Thanks, but I am not the least bit interested in your opinion, but whether or not you wish to make a truth claim.

I'm just looking for one of the following answers:
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."

 

[Davian]

This is where your logic fails. It is not circular because the claim that "God's nature is the standard of goodness" is based on how God's nature is defined in the bible, and I've cited some bible versus earlier in this thread for reference.



Thanks, but I am not the least bit interested in your opinion, but whether or not you wish to make a truth claim.

I'm just looking for one of the following answers:
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."

What does WLC do when no one takes the bait? Can you not simply link us to the appropriate web page?

 

[Joshua260]

a. Why is "no matter what any human thinks" missing in the third option?
b. Where´s the option "It is right in some cases and wrong in other cases no matter what any human thinks?" (I.e. "Even though there is an objective morality, there is no absolute about raping little girls")
and, first of all (because that would be my answer), c. Where´s the option "I don´t know that there is a moral right or wrong no matter what any human thinks - despite the fact that some humans claim there is"?

In answer to A...bottom line is that it's not needed for that option. As I have repeatedly explained, if it is "unclear" to you (or you don't know) whether or not raping little girls for fun is wrong, or maybe you just don't want to tell me if you agree with 1 or 2, you may simply reply with #3. That answer covers all those cases.

Here's the list of logical options:
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."

...and, first of all (because that would be my answer), c. Where´s the option "I don´t know that there is a moral right or wrong no matter what any human thinks - despite the fact that some humans claim there is"?

Ok, so since you don't know, I'll put you down for the last option:
3. "Raping little girls for fun *may or may not* be wrong."

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

 

[Joshua260]

No. Matt has clearly given and explained the definition of "objective" he is working from, and he is using it consistently.

Well, that works fine when the context is consistent also. The problem is that sometimes, the context is different, and when he ignores the change of context and decides to reply in accordance with the wrong context (the only one he cares about)...well, that is the definition of a "straw-man" rebuttal. Matt does it all the time. Look, you're welcome to make him your atheist poster-boy if you want, but sorry...I just don't think he's very good. I've seen him use ad hominem attacks as a strategy to *try* to win debates, and he straw-mans a lot. You're probably going to hate this, but frankly, I don't think he would hold a candle to Craig in a formal debate. I was just googling how many doctorates each of them has...have you ever compared the two?

Anyway, I'd rather troubleshoot the arguments themselves. Ad Hominem attacks are fallacious.

 

[Davian]

Well, that works fine when the context is consistent also. The problem is that sometimes, the context is different, and when he ignores the change of context and decides to reply in accordance with the wrong context (the only one he cares about)...well, that is the definition of a "straw-man" rebuttal. Matt does it all the time. Look, you're welcome to make him your atheist poster-boy if you want, but sorry...I just don't think he's very good. I've seen him use ad hominem attacks as a strategy to *try* to win debates, and he straw-mans a lot.

Are you going to cite any examples of this, or are you simply [committing the fallacy of] poisoning the well?

You're probably going to hate this, but frankly, I don't think he would hold a candle to Craig in a formal debate. I was just googling how many doctorates each of them has...have you ever compared the two?

No. Is it relevant?

Anyway, I'd rather troubleshoot the arguments themselves.

Indeed. Yours are in much need of that.

Ad Hominem attacks are fallacious.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Well, that works fine when the context is consistent also. The problem is that sometimes, the context is different, and when he ignores the change of context and decides to reply in accordance with the wrong context (the only one he cares about)...well, that is the definition of a "straw-man" rebuttal. Matt does it all the time. Look, you're welcome to make him your atheist poster-boy if you want, but sorry...I just don't think he's very good. I've seen him use ad hominem attacks as a strategy to *try* to win debates, and he straw-mans a lot. You're probably going to hate this, but frankly, I don't think he would hold a candle to Craig in a formal debate. I was just googling how many doctorates each of them has...have you ever compared the two?

Anyway, I'd rather troubleshoot the arguments themselves. Ad Hominem attacks are fallacious.

Forget doctorates, which of them is a better philosopher; which of them is trying to approach these matters honestly and openly? Craig has repeatedly indicated that he is not open to reconsidering his theological commitments, regardless of the evidence. What does that say about his philosophical praxis? Doctorates are no substitute for intellectual honesty, which is essential to practicing philosophy well. But perhaps you don't care about that; perhaps you just care about "winning" debates?

 

[quatona]

In answer to A...bottom line is that it's not needed for that option. As I have repeatedly explained, if it is "unclear" to you (or you don't know) whether or not raping little girls for fun is wrong, or maybe you just don't want to tell me if you agree with 1 or 2, you may simply reply with #3. That answer covers all those cases.

No, it doesn´t.

Ok, so since you don't know, I'll put you down for the last option:
3. "Raping little girls for fun *may or may not* be wrong."

That would be a misconclusion - but I see how it is a convenient one for you to make.

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

I´d appreciate it if you´d read my posts more carefully.

 

[quatona]

Well, that works fine when the context is consistent also. The problem is that sometimes, the context is different, and when he ignores the change of context and decides to reply in accordance with the wrong context (the only one he cares about)...well, that is the definition of a "straw-man" rebuttal. Matt does it all the time.

Where exactly does he do that in the video? Please point it out and explain it.
He is pretty clear and explicit in that he isn´t using your definition of "objective", so where is the problem?

Look, you're welcome to make him your atheist poster-boy if you want,

I don´t want to do that (but I see how a devout WLC follower might get this idea - by mere projection) - this was the only video I have seen of him, and I am merely looking at the reasoning he presents here.

but sorry...I just don't think he's very good.

Obviously, you don´t.

I've seen him use ad hominem attacks as a strategy to *try* to win debates, and he straw-mans a lot. You're probably going to hate this, but frankly, I don't think he would hold a candle to Craig in a formal debate.

Winning a formal debate merely shows that you are good at winning formal debates.

I was just googling how many doctorates each of them has...have you ever compared the two?

No, why would all this be important for scrutinizing a particular argument?

Anyway, I'd rather troubleshoot the arguments themselves.

Then already stop beating around the bush and get going.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

This is where your logic fails. It is not circular because the claim that "God's nature is the standard of goodness" is based on how God's nature is defined in the bible, and I've cited some bible versus earlier in this thread for reference.

To show the logic failure, you need to, er, show where it fails... perhaps you can show how the biblical definition invalidates the logic.

...I am not the least bit interested in your opinion, but whether or not you wish to make a truth claim.

Normative (value) statements are not truth claims, whether they phrased as positive statements or not.

I'm just looking for one of the following answers:
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."

Any answer can only be a statement of opinion or belief about those value statements.

 

[Davian]

Yes. By virtue of Him being a just God.

Would a just God hold one accountable for things beyond one's control?

 

[Joshua260]

That would be a misconclusion ...

ok. well this is what you said:

...and, first of all (because that would be my answer), c. Where´s the option "I don´t know that there is a moral right or wrong no matter what any human thinks - despite the fact that some humans claim there is"?

There's only three possible truth claims:
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."

There's really no other logical choices, and the last option covers your position (you don't know). I think what's throwing you off is that I did not include the phrase "no matter what any human thinks" in the last option, but it's not needed. The last option works in the case where we're suggesting that OMV&Ds exist, but we don't know whether truth claim 1 or 2 is correct, and it also works in the case where you are an atheist and claim that you don't know if OMV&Ds exists at all (or even if you want to sneak back into a subjective argument). Now if you are one of those rare atheists who make the truth claim that OMV&Ds do not exist, then you can concur with option 2.

However, since you said that you don't know, you must agree with the last option:

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

Anyway, thanks again for your participation.

 

[Joshua260]

To show the logic failure, you need to, er, show where it fails... perhaps you can show how the biblical definition invalidates the logic.

You seem to be confused.

You said:

The circularity of the claim is troubling: God's nature is the standard of goodness - why?...

...and then you tried to demonstrate why the reasoning was circular:

...because good is morally better than evil; and good is morally better than evil not because of some external, independent morality (horn 2 of ED), but because goodness is the character of God's nature...

...but you were mistaken. The reasoning is not circular, and I tried to explain this to you in my last reply. The reason why Christians claim that God's nature is the standard of goodness is because the bible defines his nature in that way.

The following is the definition of a truth claim:
"A truth claim is a proposition or statement that a particular person or belief system holds to be true."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_claim

The following are truth claims:
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."[/QUOTE]

 

[quatona]

ok. well this is what you said:

So you could - assuming for a moment you wanted to have an honest discussion - simply quote me instead of filing my statement as a response to a weird multiple choice question.

There's only three possible truth claims:
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."

No, there are plenty other possible truth claims.
Plus, the last one isn´t a truth claim.

There's really no other logical choices, and the last option covers your position (you don't know).

Apparently you missed the part where I said what it is that I don´t know.

I think what's throwing you off is that I did not include the phrase "no matter what any human thinks" in the last option, but it's not needed. The last option works in the case where we're suggesting that OMV&Ds exist, but we don't know whether truth claim 1 or 2 is correct, and it also works in the case where you are an atheist and claim that you don't know if OMV&Ds exists at all (or even if you want to sneak back into a subjective argument).

Exactly: You simply ignored the very criterium your entire argument is about, for purposes of creating this third option.

However, since you said that you don't know, you must agree with the last option:

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

No.
What exactly is "wrong" supposed to mean here? (You explained it for the other options, but you didn´t here).
What is it with this attempt to make me pick out of three options with the keyterm´s meaning being explained for two options, but not for the third? And then pretending they were options of "truth claims" about the same issue?
Look, since in this option for calling child-rape "wrong" it isn´t required to think it is "wrong no matter what any human thinks", there are other options that you haven´t offered: "I know it is wrong" or "I know it is right."