The Moral Argument (revamped)

[ToddNotTodd]

I never mentioned you by name, thus respecting your privacy and right to disengage this thread. But by replying to it, you brought yourself into the light. But instead of simply calling people liars that you disagree with, I would suggest doing honest debate.

You don’t have to name someone to make it evident who you’re talking about. We both know this, and everyone else knows this, so I don’t think you’re going to be able to pull off this innocent act.

How about just continuing to discuss you topic with anyone who’s still interested and just drop the rest of this...

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I can chuckle at that, too, but on a more serious note, axiologically speaking (i.e. both aesthetically and ethically), I'm at pains to see how my hypothetical experiment doesn't impute at least some tinsy-winsy bit of objectivity to human morality. Sure, it doesn't show [nor need, really] the God-hypothesis, but I think I can go with some level of common sense (like that of G.E. Moore) and deem that the results would impute some objective reaction among most human beings that we could then count as a beginning point for basic human moral consideration.

See, the truth is, we don't have to actually cut your hands off. I can merely ask you if you'd like that kind of thing: And if you can't answer honestly, then … then we can relegate you to the class of 1%. Because, let's face it, whether one is Christian or one is Atheist, or one is Nihilistic or Relativistic, or whatever supposed ethical sensibility one may attempt to believe and adhere to, most more or less healthy, reasonably sensible human beings, and probably even a number of those who seem to 'think' they enjoy pain as pleasure (God forbid!), will not want any potentially inflicted pain which could be administered to them to lead to their early demise. It's one thing to endure the 40 lashes minus one; it's another thing to be placed on the executioner's rack. So, I'm expecting "Oh, Heck NO!!" to be expressed nearly 99% across the board.

Of course, there'll always be a Polycarp here or there who, for whatever reason, seems to feign that all that sort of thing will "be a-ok." But I think that some of that talk, such as was supposed in his case, is more or less apocryphal in nature. Nay, I'm sure if we were there, we would have heard him empirically wince and whine just a bit when the fires were set to the stake on which he was tied.

I think most people can agree that suffering sucks. I don’t see a way to turn that into a framework you could call objective.

I’m perfectly fine with saying that there can be objective statements made in a subjective framework. So what’s the point in insisting that the framework is objective? Is it just because it’s used to prop up a terrible argument for a god’s existence?

 

[createdtoworship]

You don’t have to name someone to make it evident who you’re talking about. We both know this, and everyone else knows this, so I don’t think you’re going to be able to pull off this innocent act.

How about just continuing to discuss you topic with anyone who’s still interested and just drop the rest of this...

Actually I purposefully left your name out, and unless someone was reading both of our conversations from the past few pages, they would not have known who it was. So again, I am not at fault here. But I would like to continue debating. I have a section I want to post again.

Here is a quote from a book by norman geisler: ( he does have pHd in philosophy, however since some feel that this is an appeal to authority (falsly), I won't use his qualifications as a point in my debate)


Lewis’ Moral Argument. The most popular modern form of the moral argument was given
by C. S. Lewis in Mere Christianity. He not only gives the most complete form of the argument
in the most persuasive way, but he also answers major objections. The moral argument of Lewis
can be summarized:
1. There must be a universal moral law, or else: (a) Moral disagreements would make no
sense, as we all assume they do. (b) All moral criticisms would be meaningless (e.g.,
“The Nazis were wrong.”). (c) It is unnecessary to keep promises or treaties, as we all
assume that it is. (d) We would not make excuses for breaking the moral law, as we all
do.
2. But a universal moral law requires a universal Moral Law Giver, since the Source of it:
(a) Gives moral commands (as lawgivers do). (b) Is interested in our behavior (as moral
persons are).

3. Further, this universal Moral Law Giver must be absolutely good: (a) Otherwise all moral
effort would be futile in the long run, since we could be sacrificing our lives for what is
not ultimately right. (b) The source of all good must be absolutely good, since the
standard of all good must be completely good.
4. Therefore, there must be an absolutely good Moral Law Giver.
The Moral Law Is Not Herd Instinct. Lewis anticipates and persuasively answers major
objections to the moral argument. Essentially, his replies are:
What we call the moral law cannot be the result of herd instinct or else the stronger impulse
would always win, but it does not. We would always act from instinct rather than selflessly to
help someone, as we sometimes do. If the moral law were just herd instinct, then instincts would
always be right, but they are not. Even love and patriotism are sometimes wrong.
The Moral Law Is Not Social Convention. Neither can the moral law be mere social
convention, because not everything learned through society is based on social convention. For
example, math and logic are not. The same basic moral laws can be found in virtually every
society, past and present. Further, judgments about social progress would not be possible if
society were the basis of the judgments.
The Moral Law Differs from Laws of Nature. The moral law is not to be identified with the
laws of nature. Nature’s laws are descriptive (is), not prescriptive (ought) as are moral laws.
Factually convenient situations (the way it is) can be morally wrong. Someone who tries to trip
me and fails is wrong, but someone who accidentally trips me is not.
The Moral Law Is Not Human Fancy. Neither can the moral law be mere human fancy,
because we cannot get rid of it even when we would like to do so. We did not create it; it is
impressed on us from without. If it were fancy, then all value judgments would be meaningless,
including such statements as “Hate is wrong.” and “Racism is wrong.” But if the moral law is not
a description or a merely human prescription, then it must be a moral prescription from a Moral
Prescriber beyond us. As Lewis notes, this Moral Law Giver is more like Mind than Nature. He
can no more be part of Nature than an architect is identical to the building he designs.
Injustice Does Not Disprove a Moral Law Giver. The main objection to an absolutely perfect
Moral Law Giver is the argument from evil or injustice in the world. No serious person can fail
to recognize that all the murders, rapes, hatred, and cruelty in the world leave it far short of
perfect. But if the world is imperfect, how can there be an absolutely perfect God? Lewis’
answer is simple: The only way the world could possibly be imperfect is if there is an absolutely
perfect standard by which it can be judged to be imperfect (see MORALITY, ABSOLUTE NATURE OF).
For injustice makes sense only if there is a standard of justice by which something is known to
be unjust. And absolute injustice is possible only if there is an absolute standard of justice. Lewis
recalls the thoughts he had as an atheist:
Just how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked
unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when
I called it unjust. . . . Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was
nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God
collapsed too—for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not
simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying
to prove that God did not exist—in other words, that the whole of reality was
senseless—I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality—namely my idea of
justice—was full of sense. [Mere Christianity, 45, 46]

above section from:
Geisler, N. L. (1999). Baker encyclopedia of Christian apologetics. Baker Reference Library (498–501).
Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Actually I purposefully left your name out, and unless someone was reading both of our conversations from the past few pages, they would not have known who it was. So again, I am not at fault here. But I would like to continue debating. I have a section I want to post again.

Here is a quote from a book by norman geisler: ( he does have pHd in philosophy, however since some feel that this is an appeal to authority (falsly), I won't use his qualifications as a point in my debate)


Lewis’ Moral Argument. The most popular modern form of the moral argument was given
by C. S. Lewis in Mere Christianity. He not only gives the most complete form of the argument
in the most persuasive way, but he also answers major objections. The moral argument of Lewis
can be summarized:
1. There must be a universal moral law, or else: (a) Moral disagreements would make no
sense, as we all assume they do. (b) All moral criticisms would be meaningless (e.g.,
“The Nazis were wrong.”). (c) It is unnecessary to keep promises or treaties, as we all
assume that it is. (d) We would not make excuses for breaking the moral law, as we all
do.
2. But a universal moral law requires a universal Moral Law Giver, since the Source of it:
(a) Gives moral commands (as lawgivers do). (b) Is interested in our behavior (as moral
persons are).

3. Further, this universal Moral Law Giver must be absolutely good: (a) Otherwise all moral
effort would be futile in the long run, since we could be sacrificing our lives for what is
not ultimately right. (b) The source of all good must be absolutely good, since the
standard of all good must be completely good.
4. Therefore, there must be an absolutely good Moral Law Giver.
The Moral Law Is Not Herd Instinct. Lewis anticipates and persuasively answers major
objections to the moral argument. Essentially, his replies are:
What we call the moral law cannot be the result of herd instinct or else the stronger impulse
would always win, but it does not. We would always act from instinct rather than selflessly to
help someone, as we sometimes do. If the moral law were just herd instinct, then instincts would
always be right, but they are not. Even love and patriotism are sometimes wrong.
The Moral Law Is Not Social Convention. Neither can the moral law be mere social
convention, because not everything learned through society is based on social convention. For
example, math and logic are not. The same basic moral laws can be found in virtually every
society, past and present. Further, judgments about social progress would not be possible if
society were the basis of the judgments.
The Moral Law Differs from Laws of Nature. The moral law is not to be identified with the
laws of nature. Nature’s laws are descriptive (is), not prescriptive (ought) as are moral laws.
Factually convenient situations (the way it is) can be morally wrong. Someone who tries to trip
me and fails is wrong, but someone who accidentally trips me is not.
The Moral Law Is Not Human Fancy. Neither can the moral law be mere human fancy,
because we cannot get rid of it even when we would like to do so. We did not create it; it is
impressed on us from without. If it were fancy, then all value judgments would be meaningless,
including such statements as “Hate is wrong.” and “Racism is wrong.” But if the moral law is not
a description or a merely human prescription, then it must be a moral prescription from a Moral
Prescriber beyond us. As Lewis notes, this Moral Law Giver is more like Mind than Nature. He
can no more be part of Nature than an architect is identical to the building he designs.
Injustice Does Not Disprove a Moral Law Giver. The main objection to an absolutely perfect
Moral Law Giver is the argument from evil or injustice in the world. No serious person can fail
to recognize that all the murders, rapes, hatred, and cruelty in the world leave it far short of
perfect. But if the world is imperfect, how can there be an absolutely perfect God? Lewis’
answer is simple: The only way the world could possibly be imperfect is if there is an absolutely
perfect standard by which it can be judged to be imperfect (see MORALITY, ABSOLUTE NATURE OF).
For injustice makes sense only if there is a standard of justice by which something is known to
be unjust. And absolute injustice is possible only if there is an absolute standard of justice. Lewis
recalls the thoughts he had as an atheist:
Just how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked
unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when
I called it unjust. . . . Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was
nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God
collapsed too—for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not
simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying
to prove that God did not exist—in other words, that the whole of reality was
senseless—I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality—namely my idea of
justice—was full of sense. [Mere Christianity, 45, 46]

above section from:
Geisler, N. L. (1999). Baker encyclopedia of Christian apologetics. Baker Reference Library (498–501).
Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

Instead of posting this Gish Gallop over and over, how about posting your single best argument, the one that if defeated makes the whole thing fall apart, or if confirmed, makes it as close to proof as you can get?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think most people can agree that suffering sucks. I don’t see a way to turn that into a framework you could call objective.

Well, again, I'm not referring to general suffering in my empirical scenario, but rather to the mostly objective responses that we'll more or less surely receive to an inquiry directly pertaining to a painful, impending potential for death. It's not JUST that many of us fear to die; no, we don't want to die in a supra-painful incident (or accident).

I’m perfectly fine with saying that there can be objective statements made in a subjective framework. So what’s the point in insisting that the framework is objective? Is it just because it’s used to prop up a terrible argument for a god’s existence?

It's objective......because the same people who are perpetrators of pain and death to others, such as the Nazis and other racists have been, for instance, will all beg for mercy if subjected to the same potential scenario ...

It's that bug of irony that makes it more or less objective and something that imputes a value to our moral realizations on a subjective level. If we by chance think it doesn't, then we can be objectively ostracized by the rest of the world of humanity and placed into that ~1% class of deviancy (and be classified as sociopaths accordingly). [I know that in my illustration here, I'm being lenient with the expectation for only 1% of deviancy when...generally, sociopathic rates run about 4%. But I'm offering some charity and benefit of the doubt that most sociopaths aren't so bad that we will slap a psychopath sticky on their foreheads for all to see...............]

 

[createdtoworship]

Instead of posting this Gish Gallop over and over, how about posting your single best argument, the one that if defeated makes the whole thing fall apart, or if confirmed, makes it as close to proof as you can get?

There is no single argument for the moral case for God's existence, there are several points to it:

1. There must be a universal moral law, or else: (a) Moral disagreements would make no
sense, as we all assume they do. (b) All moral criticisms would be meaningless (e.g.,
“The Nazis were wrong.”). (c) It is unnecessary to keep promises or treaties, as we all
assume that it is. (d) We would not make excuses for breaking the moral law, as we all
do.
2. But a universal moral law requires a universal Moral Law Giver, since the Source of it:
(a) Gives moral commands (as lawgivers do). (b) Is interested in our behavior (as moral
persons are).

3. Further, this universal Moral Law Giver must be absolutely good: (a) Otherwise all moral
effort would be futile in the long run, since we could be sacrificing our lives for what is
not ultimately right. (b) The source of all good must be absolutely good, since the
standard of all good must be completely good.
4. Therefore, there must be an absolutely good Moral Law Giver.
The Moral Law Is Not Herd Instinct. Lewis anticipates and persuasively answers major
objections to the moral argument. Essentially, his replies are:
What we call the moral law cannot be the result of herd instinct or else the stronger impulse
would always win, but it does not. We would always act from instinct rather than selflessly to
help someone, as we sometimes do. If the moral law were just herd instinct, then instincts would
always be right, but they are not. Even love and patriotism are sometimes wrong.
The Moral Law Is Not Social Convention. Neither can the moral law be mere social
convention, because not everything learned through society is based on social convention. For
example, math and logic are not. The same basic moral laws can be found in virtually every
society, past and present. Further, judgments about social progress would not be possible if
society were the basis of the judgments.
The Moral Law Differs from Laws of Nature. The moral law is not to be identified with the
laws of nature. Nature’s laws are descriptive (is), not prescriptive (ought) as are moral laws.
Factually convenient situations (the way it is) can be morally wrong. Someone who tries to trip
me and fails is wrong, but someone who accidentally trips me is not.
The Moral Law Is Not Human Fancy. Neither can the moral law be mere human fancy,
because we cannot get rid of it even when we would like to do so. We did not create it; it is
impressed on us from without. If it were fancy, then all value judgments would be meaningless,
including such statements as “Hate is wrong.” and “Racism is wrong.” But if the moral law is not
a description or a merely human prescription, then it must be a moral prescription from a Moral
Prescriber beyond us. As Lewis notes, this Moral Law Giver is more like Mind than Nature. He
can no more be part of Nature than an architect is identical to the building he designs.
Injustice Does Not Disprove a Moral Law Giver. The main objection to an absolutely perfect
Moral Law Giver is the argument from evil or injustice in the world. No serious person can fail
to recognize that all the murders, rapes, hatred, and cruelty in the world leave it far short of
perfect. But if the world is imperfect, how can there be an absolutely perfect God? Lewis’
answer is simple: The only way the world could possibly be imperfect is if there is an absolutely
perfect standard by which it can be judged to be imperfect (see MORALITY, ABSOLUTE NATURE OF).
For injustice makes sense only if there is a standard of justice by which something is known to
be unjust. And absolute injustice is possible only if there is an absolute standard of justice. Lewis
recalls the thoughts he had as an atheist:
Just how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked
unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when
I called it unjust. . . . Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was
nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God
collapsed too—for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not
simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying
to prove that God did not exist—in other words, that the whole of reality was
senseless—I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality—namely my idea of
justice—was full of sense. [Mere Christianity, 45, 46]

above section from:
Geisler, N. L. (1999). Baker encyclopedia of Christian apologetics. Baker Reference Library (498–501).
Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

There is no single argument for the moral case for God's existence, there are several points to it:

1. There must be a universal moral law, or else: (a) Moral disagreements would make no
sense, as we all assume they do. (b) All moral criticisms would be meaningless (e.g.,
“The Nazis were wrong.”). (c) It is unnecessary to keep promises or treaties, as we all
assume that it is. (d) We would not make excuses for breaking the moral law, as we all
do.
2. But a universal moral law requires a universal Moral Law Giver, since the Source of it:
(a) Gives moral commands (as lawgivers do). (b) Is interested in our behavior (as moral
persons are).

3. Further, this universal Moral Law Giver must be absolutely good: (a) Otherwise all moral
effort would be futile in the long run, since we could be sacrificing our lives for what is
not ultimately right. (b) The source of all good must be absolutely good, since the
standard of all good must be completely good.
4. Therefore, there must be an absolutely good Moral Law Giver.
The Moral Law Is Not Herd Instinct. Lewis anticipates and persuasively answers major
objections to the moral argument. Essentially, his replies are:
What we call the moral law cannot be the result of herd instinct or else the stronger impulse
would always win, but it does not. We would always act from instinct rather than selflessly to
help someone, as we sometimes do. If the moral law were just herd instinct, then instincts would
always be right, but they are not. Even love and patriotism are sometimes wrong.
The Moral Law Is Not Social Convention. Neither can the moral law be mere social
convention, because not everything learned through society is based on social convention. For
example, math and logic are not. The same basic moral laws can be found in virtually every
society, past and present. Further, judgments about social progress would not be possible if
society were the basis of the judgments.
The Moral Law Differs from Laws of Nature. The moral law is not to be identified with the
laws of nature. Nature’s laws are descriptive (is), not prescriptive (ought) as are moral laws.
Factually convenient situations (the way it is) can be morally wrong. Someone who tries to trip
me and fails is wrong, but someone who accidentally trips me is not.
The Moral Law Is Not Human Fancy. Neither can the moral law be mere human fancy,
because we cannot get rid of it even when we would like to do so. We did not create it; it is
impressed on us from without. If it were fancy, then all value judgments would be meaningless,
including such statements as “Hate is wrong.” and “Racism is wrong.” But if the moral law is not
a description or a merely human prescription, then it must be a moral prescription from a Moral
Prescriber beyond us. As Lewis notes, this Moral Law Giver is more like Mind than Nature. He
can no more be part of Nature than an architect is identical to the building he designs.
Injustice Does Not Disprove a Moral Law Giver. The main objection to an absolutely perfect
Moral Law Giver is the argument from evil or injustice in the world. No serious person can fail
to recognize that all the murders, rapes, hatred, and cruelty in the world leave it far short of
perfect. But if the world is imperfect, how can there be an absolutely perfect God? Lewis’
answer is simple: The only way the world could possibly be imperfect is if there is an absolutely
perfect standard by which it can be judged to be imperfect (see MORALITY, ABSOLUTE NATURE OF).
For injustice makes sense only if there is a standard of justice by which something is known to
be unjust. And absolute injustice is possible only if there is an absolute standard of justice. Lewis
recalls the thoughts he had as an atheist:
Just how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked
unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when
I called it unjust. . . . Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was
nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God
collapsed too—for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not
simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying
to prove that God did not exist—in other words, that the whole of reality was
senseless—I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality—namely my idea of
justice—was full of sense. [Mere Christianity, 45, 46]

above section from:
Geisler, N. L. (1999). Baker encyclopedia of Christian apologetics. Baker Reference Library (498–501).
Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

I didn't imply there was only one argument. I said bring out your best one.

And are you getting royalties from this guy's book? I don't think I've never seen anyone post the exact same thing over and over like you are.

 

[createdtoworship]

I didn't imply there was only one argument. I said bring out your best one.

And are you getting royalties from this guy's book? I don't think I've never seen anyone post the exact same thing over and over like you are.

I repeat it only for others to also see it, and so far no one has refuted it. In fact because of it's success, I will add it to the OP. So let me know when you are willing or able to respond further. It was nice to debate with you, take care.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I repeat it only for others to also see it, and so far no one has refuted it. In fact because of it's success, I will add it to the OP. So let me know when you are willing or able to respond further. It was nice to debate with you, take care.

You do realize that it isn't logical to think that just because you believe no one has refuted your argument (and in all actuality that isn't true at all) that it's successful, right?

And it's very telling that you're unable to come up with a best argument, but instead just keep repeating the same block of copy over and over...

 

[Moral Orel]

What is factually incorrect? He just gave a bit of reasoning, not obscure appeals to authority. Some here love to throw around so-called "Fallacies" as an attempt to short-circuit argument. Indeed your own appeal to a particular definition of a stock fallacy is itself (ironically) an argument from authority. There is no need to enter into obscure debates about whose definition of some special fallacy is correct. One should just explain their position or explain why their opponent's position is false. We should just avoid all this referring to so-called stock fallacies. That's what gaara did. Good for him.

It's factually incorrect that what gaara presented was the definition of an appeal to authority. I said the same thing previously, and I was wrong. I also argued with Todd that appeal to authority shouldn't be used so extensively, so it isn't "ironic" for me to cite a source for a definition.

Fallacies, just like words, have definitions. Just like I don't write out the definition for every word I use, I can cite a fallacy instead of writing out the entire definition. It's no different from saying something like "computer" instead of writing out, "an electronic device for storing and processing data, typically in binary form, according to instructions given to it in a variable program."

 

[gaara4158]

There is no single argument for the moral case for God's existence, there are several points to it:

1. There must be a universal moral law, or else: (a) Moral disagreements would make no
sense, as we all assume they do. (b) All moral criticisms would be meaningless (e.g.,
“The Nazis were wrong.”). (c) It is unnecessary to keep promises or treaties, as we all
assume that it is. (d) We would not make excuses for breaking the moral law, as we all
do.
2. But a universal moral law requires a universal Moral Law Giver, since the Source of it:
(a) Gives moral commands (as lawgivers do). (b) Is interested in our behavior (as moral
persons are).

3. Further, this universal Moral Law Giver must be absolutely good: (a) Otherwise all moral
effort would be futile in the long run, since we could be sacrificing our lives for what is
not ultimately right. (b) The source of all good must be absolutely good, since the
standard of all good must be completely good.
4. Therefore, there must be an absolutely good Moral Law Giver.
The Moral Law Is Not Herd Instinct. Lewis anticipates and persuasively answers major
objections to the moral argument. Essentially, his replies are:
What we call the moral law cannot be the result of herd instinct or else the stronger impulse
would always win, but it does not. We would always act from instinct rather than selflessly to
help someone, as we sometimes do. If the moral law were just herd instinct, then instincts would
always be right, but they are not. Even love and patriotism are sometimes wrong.
The Moral Law Is Not Social Convention. Neither can the moral law be mere social
convention, because not everything learned through society is based on social convention. For
example, math and logic are not. The same basic moral laws can be found in virtually every
society, past and present. Further, judgments about social progress would not be possible if
society were the basis of the judgments.
The Moral Law Differs from Laws of Nature. The moral law is not to be identified with the
laws of nature. Nature’s laws are descriptive (is), not prescriptive (ought) as are moral laws.
Factually convenient situations (the way it is) can be morally wrong. Someone who tries to trip
me and fails is wrong, but someone who accidentally trips me is not.
The Moral Law Is Not Human Fancy. Neither can the moral law be mere human fancy,
because we cannot get rid of it even when we would like to do so. We did not create it; it is
impressed on us from without. If it were fancy, then all value judgments would be meaningless,
including such statements as “Hate is wrong.” and “Racism is wrong.” But if the moral law is not
a description or a merely human prescription, then it must be a moral prescription from a Moral
Prescriber beyond us. As Lewis notes, this Moral Law Giver is more like Mind than Nature. He
can no more be part of Nature than an architect is identical to the building he designs.
Injustice Does Not Disprove a Moral Law Giver. The main objection to an absolutely perfect
Moral Law Giver is the argument from evil or injustice in the world. No serious person can fail
to recognize that all the murders, rapes, hatred, and cruelty in the world leave it far short of
perfect. But if the world is imperfect, how can there be an absolutely perfect God? Lewis’
answer is simple: The only way the world could possibly be imperfect is if there is an absolutely
perfect standard by which it can be judged to be imperfect (see MORALITY, ABSOLUTE NATURE OF).
For injustice makes sense only if there is a standard of justice by which something is known to
be unjust. And absolute injustice is possible only if there is an absolute standard of justice. Lewis
recalls the thoughts he had as an atheist:
Just how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked
unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when
I called it unjust. . . . Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was
nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God
collapsed too—for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not
simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying
to prove that God did not exist—in other words, that the whole of reality was
senseless—I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality—namely my idea of
justice—was full of sense. [Mere Christianity, 45, 46]

above section from:
Geisler, N. L. (1999). Baker encyclopedia of Christian apologetics. Baker Reference Library (498–501).
Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

In general, it’s not very sporting to copy-paste an argument. You should put in the same amount of effort in making your argument as you expect others to put in when engaging it, and that means putting it in your own words.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It's factually incorrect that what gaara presented was the definition of an appeal to authority. I said the same thing previously, and I was wrong. I also argued with Todd that appeal to authority shouldn't be used so extensively, so it isn't "ironic" for me to cite a source for a definition.

Fallacies, just like words, have definitions. Just like I don't write out the definition for every word I use, I can cite a fallacy instead of writing out the entire definition. It's no different from saying something like "computer" instead of writing out, "an electronic device for storing and processing data, typically in binary form, according to instructions given to it in a variable program."

Wouldn't it just be easier here to cite 3 or 4 links to authoritative websites offering articles on this particular fallacy and just put the kibosh on the in-fighting over all of this?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I repeat it only for others to also see it, and so far no one has refuted it. In fact because of it's success, I will add it to the OP. So let me know when you are willing or able to respond further. It was nice to debate with you, take care.

You might want to realize that there are many other Christian philosophers out there who are worthy to read besides just the works of Christian Apologists like Norman Geisler.

I like Geisler, and although I have some of Geisler's books, I've noticed that sometimes he doesn't quite take the bull by the horns ... which is why I read Christian philosophers rather than just Christian apologists.

In general, it’s not very sporting to copy-paste an argument. You should put in the same amount of effort in making your argument as you expect others to put in when engaging it, and that means putting it in your own words.

...in addition to successful paraphrasing, it would also be nice to see quotes from books and articles put into proper citational form, or at least something closely approximating this; yes, this might also be a sporting thing to do.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Wouldn't it just be easier here to cite 3 or 4 links to authoritative websites offering articles on this particular fallacy and just put the kibosh on the in-fighting over all of this?

Let’s just all agree that there are no such things as logical fallacies. After which I’ll be presenting my 10000 proofs that a god can’t exist.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Let’s just all agree that there are no such things as logical fallacies. After which I’ll be presenting my 10000 proofs that a god can’t exist.

Ok. That sounds great! And can I get an autographed copy from you?

 

[createdtoworship]

You do realize that it isn't logical to think that just because you believe no one has refuted your argument (and in all actuality that isn't true at all) that it's successful, right?

And it's very telling that you're unable to come up with a best argument, but instead just keep repeating the same block of copy over and over...

thanks for the debate, I appreciate your willingness to be open about your beliefs but in a non fighty fashion, that is very mature of you. Let me know if you wish to adress the post I put up.

 

[createdtoworship]

In general, it’s not very sporting to copy-paste an argument. You should put in the same amount of effort in making your argument as you expect others to put in when engaging it, and that means putting it in your own words.

my opinion is simply just a non degreed opinion, it is much more objective to post someone who has some education in philosophy, as you said already "I should read a philosophy book." So I did what you said. But I see your having problems addressing the post regardless. My recommendation would be to pray to God to reveal Himself to you, if He does exist. And then re read the post from the philosophy major, then reread my OP afterward. He says it in a much more clear fashion that I did. Thank for the debate.

 

[gaara4158]

my opinion is simply just a non degreed opinion, it is much more objective to post someone who has some education in philosophy, as you said already "I should read a philosophy book." So I did what you said. But I see your having problems addressing the post regardless. My recommendation would be to pray to God to reveal Himself to you, if He does exist. And then re read the post from the philosophy major, then reread my OP afterward. He says it in a much more clear fashion that I did. Thank for the debate.

I don’t recall telling you to read a philosophy book (you may have me confused with someone else again), but the problem with pasting whole arguments is others can just as easily paste whole counter-arguments, and at that point it’s just those two philosophers arguing with each other by proxy.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I don’t recall telling you to read a philosophy book (you may have me confused with someone else again), but the problem with pasting whole arguments is others can just as easily paste whole counter-arguments, and at that point it’s just those two philosophers arguing with each other by proxy.

We all should read a Philosophy book. The world would be a better place.

I’d start with anything by Jacques Derrida...

 

[createdtoworship]

I don’t recall telling you to read a philosophy book (you may have me confused with someone else again), but the problem with pasting whole arguments is others can just as easily paste whole counter-arguments, and at that point it’s just those two philosophers arguing with each other by proxy.

that would be fine, posting counter arguments from an official source. I prefer that over posting our opinions of people who have never studied this for a living. And I feel this resembles the true spirit of debate. But so far there has been several modifications to the moral case for God's existence. Probably because of debates like this. So positive things happen when people actually address what is posted. So far I have no need to counter argue anything, because no one has even tried to counter C.S. lewis's argument. Which is an indication of it's success. So take care, nice debating you. Let me know if you wish to counter any of the arguments. (and sorry for confusing you again, you guys have the same type of posting style, from my perspective, so I confuse you two.)