Best Evidence of God -- Inerrancy of the Bible
- Thread starter Xalith
- Start date
Joshua260
Well-Known Member
- Oct 30, 2012
- 1,448
- 42
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
You're confused. This discussion originated from the Euthyphro Dilemma. The question was asked what makes God's nature the standard of goodness, and the answer was that the bible defines the Christian god as being so. This is not circular. It is tracing a truth claim back to it's justification.Because the Bible is the word of God... oh, wait
Getting dizzy again...
Upvote
0
Matt addressed this. Instead of engaging with his point, however, you took a page from the "Dawkins" playbook.
What would be wrong with that?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Joshua260
Well-Known Member
- Oct 30, 2012
- 1,448
- 42
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Ok, so the following was not correct?
Thank you. As you have demonstrated by shifting the criteria, some beliefs in a god have more supporting evidence than beliefs in other gods. That's a pretty significant shift.
Upvote
0
What shift? We were talking about gods other than the Christian god. You selected Neptune as an example, presumably because it makes it difficult to properly evaluate whether it is better to believe in Neptune than to not believe in him. A better analogue would be the god of Islam who, like the god of Christianity, might be inclined to punish disbelief.
Upvote
0
No, it's tracing back a claim to the source of that claim. You have yet to justify the claim itself.
Upvote
0
Joshua260
Well-Known Member
- Oct 30, 2012
- 1,448
- 42
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
What would be wrong with that?[/QUOTE]Matt addressed this. Instead of engaging with his point, however, you took a page from the "Dawkins" playbook.
[quote="Joshua260, post: 69219403, member: 318224"In order for an omnipotent god to make it so that there is always a peaceful solution, then he would have to prevent us from doing evil.
Here's where one of the atheist inconsistencies really shines through!! Many atheists kick and scream against a god who would have the audacity to tell them what to do. "Away with your rules!"..."Away with your restrictions!"..."Leave me alone!"..."Let me do what I want to do!" Yet, when it comes to the problem of evil argument, all that gets thrown aside. "God should just make everyone do good!"
You guys need to make up your mind. You can't have free will, and no free will at the same time.
Upvote
0
Joshua260
Well-Known Member
- Oct 30, 2012
- 1,448
- 42
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
You're wrong again.
The scriptures in the bible are the justification for the claim that the Christian god is the standard of goodness.
Whether the bible is true or not is another claim, which is based on other justification.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
I took it for granted that you would know I was referring to gods that have a proclivity for punishing disbelief, since that is precisely what the wager is based on. Clearly that was a mistake, and I need to spell things out for you in the future.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
There are more schools of thought on morality than subjectivism and objectivism. I believe that everything, eventually, can be measured and therefore learned from. Now we can argue about that if you want, but that isn't the point I was making in my statements. The point is, that instead of saying "little girls" you're going to have to state an actual age because according to the Bible (your source of objective morals) it is okay to rape your wife, even if she is very young. What was the age of marrying back then? 12? 13 maybe? So your statement of an objective moral needs to be "It is never okay to rape girls under the age of 12".
You see, in order to make this argument that objective morals come from God, we need to really decide of God thinks morals are objective in the first place. Evidence to me points to the idea that God thinks morals are subjective, to be honest. For instance, it was okay to commit genocide for the ancient Israelites, but it wouldn't be okay for me to do that. Therefore genocide is a subjective moral according to the Bible.
And just like all the other atrocities you can find in the Bible, you need to acknowledge that all of these are somehow subjective morals, because it is okay for some people, some times, to do these terrible things. And then explain how genocide, slavery, racism, sexism, the death penalty, burning people alive, sacrificing your children to your deity, forcing people to cannibalize each other, and all the other terrible, terrible things in The Bible are subjective morals, and somehow something as simple as thinking about a woman whom you are not married to in a sexual way is an objective moral.
Dawkins isn't my god. Is Craig yours? Just because there isn't a deity giving me purpose doesn't mean I can't have one. Just because there isn't a deity giving me emotions doesn't mean I don't have those either. Emotions (i.e. the opposite of indifference) can be nothing more than electrical signals and chemicals in my brain, but that doesn't make them less real than emotions thought of in a metaphysical sense.
Excuse me, no, actually, you are completely wrong about what I said. I didn't say anything about God preventing the ancient Israelites from doing evil. I said that God commanded the Israelites to do things back then that we consider to be evil today. He could have solved their problems by protecting them in other ways than telling them to kill babies.
He could have given the Israelites skin as hard as iron so that their enemy's swords couldn't pierce their skin...
He could have made a giant force field around their nation so that only they may enter their cities...
He could have guarded the areas in-between their nation and the nations of their enemies with T-Rexs which would undoubtedly cause any enemy to be too afraid to march an army on the Israelites...
I could go on, and I am just a lowly, ignorant human. Imagine if I was omniscient the things I could think up? And yet, the God of the OT thought of all these things and more and decided he wanted the Israelites to kill babies.
Upvote
0
Indeed, it isn´t.
Yes - because the question you asked me. There are basically three options to answer the question.
a. yes, b. no, c. depends, d. maybe, maybe not.
I answered a, not d. Yet you are concluding I had answered d (your option 3).
Case closed (as you said, this isn´t rocket science).
[uuote] So the next question is do you believe that is an objective moral wrong or do you believe in it subjectively?[/quote]
It´s not the next question, it´s a totally different question. (As an aside, it´s even a different question than "Do you believe...no matter what any human thinks" - since in this question you are asking us to adopt your definition of "objective morality".).
Plus, it´s a question to which #1 and #2 are possible answers (although there are more), but not #3 (because neither "objectively" nor "no matter what any human thinks" shows up there).
So the problem here is:
You have offered a list that combines answers to different questions.
Another problem is:
There are more answer to each question than you have offered.
Of course, the greatest problem is that you are trying to tackle a meta moral disagreement by asking moral questions. As long as we haven´t agreed that there is such a thing as "obejctive morality" or a "morality no matter what any human thinks" the question "Do you think that X is objectively wrong or right" may not even be meaningful.
"I don´t know that an objective morality exists" (meta moral topic) isn´t accurately represented by "Issue X may or may not be objectively morally wrong." (moral topic)
I have no idea how religious affiliations (or lack thereof) come here, out of a sudden.
No, you neither have to, nor would you be correct in doing so. You desperately want to.
It´s not my fault that you made a poll that is comprised of answers to different questions. This I have told you from my very first response to this poll. Fix it, and stop lieing.
Oh, now there´s yet another category: While up to now you asked for beliefs, now you suddenly pretend I was asked to answer a knowledge question.
You had my answer. Stop lieing already.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Joshua, not sure if it´s asking too much when I ask you to put your script aside, just for a moment.
Because there´s something I don´t understand:
What´s the relevance of a morality "no matter what any human thinks" that you are so concerned with, anyway?
If, hypothetically, this morality "no matter what any human thinks" would - contrary to what any human thinks - dictate that raping little girls for fun is a good thing, what do you propose to do with this moral preceipt?
Thanks in advance.
Because there´s something I don´t understand:
What´s the relevance of a morality "no matter what any human thinks" that you are so concerned with, anyway?
If, hypothetically, this morality "no matter what any human thinks" would - contrary to what any human thinks - dictate that raping little girls for fun is a good thing, what do you propose to do with this moral preceipt?
Thanks in advance.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Yes, I understood them.
Hurrah. So you see it's about as subjective as it could be.
How is that vague?
Of course, it's a normative statement; my personal values, my personal standards.
How is 'really wrong' different from plain wrong? the difference between subjectivity and objectivity isn't one of degree. MV&Ds are about what people think about actions that affect the well-being of people; that makes them subjective.
Really? In that case, my opinion that something is wrong is a preference in the same way, and to the same extent, that, in your God-given morality, God would prefer us not to rape little girls for fun.
As I see it, God's preference would be no 'better' or more objective than anyone else's (Ethyphro dilemma, horn 2); the argument to the contrary is an argument by definition; circular, and founded on unsubstantiated non-sequiturs (might-makes-right, and/or creator-dictates-morality).
For example: Who says God's preference is better? God does. Why is it better? because God is the standard of goodness. What is goodness? God's nature. How do we know God's nature? by what He says and does. What does He say? that He is the standard of goodness and that His preference is better... Rinse and repeat. We covered this earlier.
But thinking something is wrong is not 'just a preference'. The subjective view is based on human feelings and desires, the things most precious to us. Devaluing the subjective view devalues those precious things.
You may not. My 'real' answer is the one I gave, not the one you would like me to give. Don't misrepresent me, it reeks of mendacity. If you want to quote me, by all means do so, in context.
Some people are having a hard time admitting that this just doesn't hold up under critical examination.
I can't comment on this, it's too vague and ambiguous.
You're welcome.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Similar threads
