Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.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.
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks".No, I have not called into Matt's show, and as I told you before, more than once, I am not Jeremy.
Can you cite any recent examples?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.
You seem to promote this site exclusively. Do you have any financial interest in WLC's business?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
Your opinion is noted.It is not the Christian view that there is a moral code that is superior to God.
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.1. Is something good because God says it is good? or
2. Does God say something is good because it is good.
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:... we believe that God's nature itself is the standard of goodness.
Well, sorry, you won´t get an answer when the premise of the question isn´t agreed upon.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."
Actually, it is even less complicated:It doesn't have to get any more complicated than that.
No. Matt has clearly given and explained the definition of "objective" he is working from, and he is using it consistently.We're talking past each other because you (and Matt Dillahunty) are equivocating on the use of the word "objective".
a. Why is "no matter what any human thinks" missing in the third option?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."
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.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...
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.
What does WLC do when no one takes the bait? Can you not simply link us to the appropriate web page?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."
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"?
...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"?
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?No. Matt has clearly given and explained the definition of "objective" he is working from, and he is using it consistently.
Are you going to cite any examples of this, or are you simply [committing the fallacy of] poisoning the well?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.
No. Is it relevant?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?
Indeed. Yours are in much need of that.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?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.
No, it doesn´t.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.
That would be a misconclusion - but I see how it is a convenient one for you to make.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."
I´d appreciate it if you´d read my posts more carefully.Thanks for your participation in the conversation. I appreciate it.
Where exactly does he do that in the video? Please point it out and explain it.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.
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.Look, you're welcome to make him your atheist poster-boy if you want,
Obviously, you don´t.but sorry...I just don't think he's very good.
Winning a formal debate merely shows that you are good at winning formal debates.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.
No, why would all this be important for scrutinizing a particular argument?I was just googling how many doctorates each of them has...have you ever compared the two?
Then already stop beating around the bush and get going.Anyway, I'd rather troubleshoot the arguments themselves.
To show the logic failure, you need to, er, show where it fails... perhaps you can show how the biblical definition invalidates the logic.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.
Normative (value) statements are not truth claims, whether they phrased as positive statements or not....I am not the least bit interested in your opinion, but whether or not you wish to make a truth claim.
Any answer can only be a statement of opinion or belief about those value statements.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."
ok. well this is what you said:That would be a misconclusion ...
...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"?
You seem to be confused.To show the logic failure, you need to, er, show where it fails... perhaps you can show how the biblical definition invalidates the logic.
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...
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.ok. well this is what you said:
No, there are plenty other possible truth claims.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."
Apparently you missed the part where I said what it is that I don´t know.There's really no other logical choices, and the last option covers your position (you don't know).
Exactly: You simply ignored the very criterium your entire argument is about, for purposes of creating this third option.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).
No.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."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?