Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Which, objective morality, or his rules? If a god says what is moral, they are not objective.
This is the old Euthyphro dilemma again. But as Craig himself points out, it's really a false dilemma. The options are not necessarily limited to 1. god arbitrarily makes up what is good, and 2. god looks beyond himself to determine what is good. It could be, for instance, that god is what Plato called "the good", and his commands are just expressions of his morally perfect nature.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
Apart from Kalam being a non sequitur based on an unproven premise?
The KCA is definitely not a non sequitur. The conclusion follows from the premises. And there are two premises; which one are you claiming isn't "proven"? And by "proven", do you mean proven with certainty? Because no one's claiming these premises are known with certainty, just that their more plausible than their negations.
No, it is pointing out the meaning of 'objective morality'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
The KCA is definitely not a non sequitur. The conclusion follows from the premises.
Which conclusion? WLC's question begging conclusion, or the simple 'that is what we call God' conclusion? The second is definitely a non sequitur.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
And there are two premises; which one are you claiming isn't "proven"?
Both. Do things that begin to exist have a cause, and that the universe began to exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
And by "proven", do you mean proven with certainty? Because no one's claiming these premises are known with certainty, just that their more plausible than their negations.
Then the argument is not logical, and as an exercise in probability it is lacking in evidence.
No, it is pointing out the meaning of 'objective morality'.
Well there's nothing about morality being objective that precludes it and god's nature being one and the same.
Quote:
Which conclusion?
I thought you were familiar with the Kalam; you said it was a non sequitur... Anyway, the conclusion of the Kalam is "The universe had a cause". And then from there Craig does a conceptual analysis of what the cause of space and time must be, to arrive at something closely resembling a god.
Quote:
The second is definitely a non sequitur.
Not at all. He gives the reasoning behind it as well.
Quote:
Both. Do things that begin to exist have a cause, and that the universe began to exist.
And he gives good arguments/evidence in defense of these premises. So what's the problem?
Quote:
Then the argument is not logical, and as an exercise in probability it is lacking in evidence.
The only way the argument would be illogical is if he were arguing from the plausibility of the premises to certainty, but he isn't. And a sound, valid deductive argument just is the evidence for its conclusion. Indeed, if the premises were proven with certainty, it would be absolute proof of it.
In truth, the God of wrath, vengeance, eternal torment or annihilation, and appeasement by blood sacrifice sounds more like a description of Satan than a description of God. If, as Jesus said and demonstrated, God IS agape love, then none of those descriptions can possibly be true. Every Christian should reject them as corruptions from our primitive and ignorant ancestors.
If I were to magically separate all of your flaws, would you still be you? If I pointed to all the perceived "bad" that you do, is that you? I say perceived, because I have not doubt that some actions called bad were actually just.
We can only apply the same logic to god. i can't see separating what the universe does into parts that are distinctly separated from each other.
If there is agape love there is agape indifference also. i can't see any way around this notion.
Well there's nothing about morality being objective that precludes it and god's nature being one and the same.
No, but it does preclude god deciding what is and is not moral.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
I thought you were familiar with the Kalam; you said it was a non sequitur...
In it's various forms, yes. Which is why WLC developed the later, cosmological version. Because the first is a non sequitur.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
Anyway, the conclusion of the Kalam is "The universe had a cause". And then from there Craig does a conceptual analysis of what the cause of space and time must be, to arrive at something closely resembling a god.
Yes, he begs the question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
Not at all. He gives the reasoning behind it as well.
Yes, the second question begging one. Remove that, and the God did it argument does not follow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
And he gives good arguments/evidence in defense of these premises. So what's the problem?
Cosmologists. You know, the people who point out WLC's arguments are scientifically not sound.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
The only way the argument would be illogical is if he were arguing from the plausibility of the premises to certainty, but he isn't. And a sound, valid deductive argument just is the evidence for its conclusion. Indeed, if the premises were proven with certainty, it would be absolute proof of it.
So WLC is saying IF the universe had a beginning? I seem to have missed that part.
...and Christians call atheists 'militant' when we speak up about this sort of crap. We're not the ones that justify bashing the heads of babies open on rocks, and we're not the ones justifying mass slaughter of defeated enemies.
if you knew what the history of that land really was.. well.. you just prove how militant stupid can get..
That land was first stolen by Egypt and Canaanites and some of their cousins.
and God was returning that land to the original owners. Where ever he saves the females of those tribes
that he attacks .... .. these Females were the original owners of all the land. maybe just a remnant was saved. but at least some of them were righteously restored in what should have been their inheritance. Then He had raised UP the sons of "Israel" in Egypt to take back what Mizraim stole and Canaanites stole from those ladies and raised up an army and nation of people within Egypt to take the land and keep it safe For those ladies who's land it really was!! because he was saving and returning the land to them ... there were thieves and squatters who had stolen that land and were living on that land. They had taken by theft and war that land from the ladies.
So God was "saving" it for them and returning their goods/ their inheritances to them. Those same ladies is why Jesus "Inherits" that land .
By bloody head chopping wars went world wide called the Menegewi and Allegewi wars.. you can find that war went world wide, and you can find it's history world wide.. .. . that same birthright on a female line of inheritance is how one becomes/became an Atlas/ Attalus..
Jesus and Solomon were an Attalus or Michah/ Mingo... the "Tributaries" clan / city states / of the matrilineal gentile nations/ sea faring kingdoms kingdoms actually queendoms.. Like The Queen of Shebah and Queen Ali Quippa /na.. Kheppah all ..) see "Narmer's palette " that is MENES/ MN this is the record for the original theft of that land and in it the murder and betrayal of the Great Kings/ 10 Great( wealthy ) sea trading kingdoms and all their wealth that was stolen worldwide. Seems you don't know who or what God was dealing with ! but GoD knew who He was dealing with though!!
That truth is why all the gentile nations submitted so readily to Solomon and treated with him in trade .. like they once treated with Egypt. Egypt had controlled those matrilineal bloodlines and bought and sold them for at least 1000 years and more.. even the name Menelaus should have rung someones bell. But by those same birthrights Solomon inherited by his mom and Jesus will inherit them by his moms blood rights.. !
the militant ignorance in "higher education" does not understand history and has made up it's own ideas of it . For it's own political and monetary gain.. all of which are lies and foolishness. and they are all very militant ABOUT ALL OF THEIR IGNORANCE.
IGNORANCE IS PROFOUNDLY MILITANT..
HAS ANYONE EVER ASKED WHY IT IS WHY THERE IS ONLY ONE PERSON NAMED WHO WILL STAND IN JUDGMENT AT " THE JUDGMENT OF THE NATIONS" ? AND WHY IT IS A WOMAN?
the Jews are and were always matrilineal( forms of inheritance) society for a reason, which long forgotten now.. but militant ignorance has gotten everyone very confused! BECAUSE THEY ARE ALL QUITE IGNORANT .. God was returning the land to it's real owners.
the theives were head lopping bloody murders and had taken their wars world wide.....and it appears are doing it again. and they will Be picking the same Fight with God himself !! .
He is not bound by the moral commands he's given to human beings, because the context is different. He commands us to have no Gods but him. But He is the only God, so that really wouldn't apply.
He commands us not to kill. As imperfect beings, we are unqualified to judge other human beings and are not any better morally. He is.
All you are establishing here is that morality is not objective or absolute, which is a little funny. You are the last person I would expect to be a moral relativist, but truth is stranger than fiction I suppose...
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
Himself. That's it. He is the highest possible source of life, morality, anything in the universe. He is the ultimate standard and what he does or says is good by virtue of the fact that he is the one doing or saying it. Not because he's all powerful, but because he's all everything.
Sorry. Doesn't make sense. He created morality. He created the concept. He spoke this entire universe into existence, including the morality that you claim he should be subject to.
Good to see that I was not misunderstanding you. If there is no external measure of good which can be applied to God, if he is , as you claimed amoral, a being that is beyond right and wrong, then God can in no way be "good". He simply is, like gravity or the sun, or quantum mechanics.
So when you say God is the creator of morality, is may be because he is all knowing, all powerful, infinite, or omnipresent, but we have logically established that he cannot in any meaningful way be "good". So the source of the rightness, the morality of God's commands cannot be his own rightness or morality. His commands, his moral strictures as communicated by scripture and tradition are by definition a hypocritical, "do what I say, not what I do" type of morality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
He is to be obeyed because he is God. No other reason is needed. If you don't like that, I'ms sorry. Take it up with him.
This makes no sense at all. A being or entity simply having a title of "God" doesn't mean you have to obey it. That's a good discussion to have with GldnRule... <wink>
Seriously, it isn't the word God that has any power, it is what underlies the concept of God. This is what I'm am trying to get you to unpack with me. What does it mean to be a God, according to your understanding? What part of that definition compels our obedience and love? I would argue that power without goodness is tyranny, wisdom and knowledge without goodness is simply manipulation, property rights (the right to own and control one's creation was a claim Vizio, a former poster liked to go with) without goodness is simply slavery. I would argue that the objective goodness and morality of a God is necessary for him to be worth of love and obedience, and you are arguing that God is amoral, and thus not worthy of that devotion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
But I do know him to be good and loving and he has shown me that he is in how he has provided for me. I'm sorry if you can't see the same.
But you believe that he will torment eternally beings that he created knowing that they would suffer, because they would not or perhaps could not choose salvation. So you are not arguing for the goodness of God, just your own special status. Even flawed, sinful humans can be good and loving to a select few others. If God has no more moral authority than man, then we are back to a cosmic tyrant.
How come no one asks "why if anyone is saved is it only women and children? " and " why is God so picky about which women? ?" "and which nations women ?".. and with bees/ wasps stinging hornets.. or ( see below) going out before them.. why are those who are still there there?
Deu 7:20
Moreover the LORD thy God will send the hornet among them, until they that are left, and hide themselves from thee, be destroyed.
Jos 24:12
And I sent the hornet before you, which drove them out from before you, even the two kings of the Amorites; but not with thy sword, nor with thy bow.
why are those who are there still there ?
see here! is this what he used before ?
Rev 9:5
And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months: and their torment was as the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man.
Rev 9:10
And they had tails like unto scorpions, and there were stings in their tails: and their power was to hurt men five months.
I bet that could get rid of some giants even!!
maybe either they are very very very rebellious people or their women were the real owners of the lands?
and God does not put details for no reason.. how about this detail..
why is Elizabeth in hiding for 5 months like for the 5 months of these hornets? ?
Khepah/ zebeth/ Shebah/ Quippa, that is all the same word with all the same meanings .( making John, an owner/son of the land, thus an atlas? (or at the very least a "half king" sharing powers with his mother ? ) take your pick.
did God use those same
"Hornets" to save the Khebah's/Shebah's and their clan systems before? just to drive out the Giants?
I will guess that
next time he will teach men righteousness with those hornets though! .
so if you continue to ask the wrong questions and are ignorant( to ignore or forget) of history and ignorant ( to ignore or forget ) of His words and records.
will you also continue to get the wrong answers and come to every wrong conclusion? yes of course!
the only reason to continue to be so ignorant is for political or financial and or religious ( or all the above) gain!
yes rebellion and ignorance is profoundly militant..
All you are establishing here is that morality is not objective or absolute, which is a little funny. You are the last person I would expect to be a moral relativist, but truth is stranger than fiction I suppose...
Good to see that I was not misunderstanding you. If there is no external measure of good which can be applied to God, if he is , as you claimed amoral, a being that is beyond right and wrong, then God can in no way be "good". He simply is, like gravity or the sun, or quantum mechanics.
So when you say God is the creator of morality, is may be because he is all knowing, all powerful, infinite, or omnipresent, but we have logically established that he cannot in any meaningful way be "good". So the source of the rightness, the morality of God's commands cannot be his own rightness or morality. His commands, his moral strictures as communicated by scripture and tradition are by definition a hypocritical, "do what I say, not what I do" type of morality.
This makes no sense at all. A being or entity simply having a title of "God" doesn't mean you have to obey it. That's a good discussion to have with GldnRule... <wink>
Seriously, it isn't the word God that has any power, it is what underlies the concept of God. This is what I'm am trying to get you to unpack with me. What does it mean to be a God, according to your understanding? What part of that definition compels our obedience and love? I would argue that power without goodness is tyranny, wisdom and knowledge without goodness is simply manipulation, property rights (the right to own and control one's creation was a claim Vizio, a former poster liked to go with) without goodness is simply slavery. I would argue that the objective goodness and morality of a God is necessary for him to be worth of love and obedience, and you are arguing that God is amoral, and thus not worthy of that devotion.
But you believe that he will torment eternally beings that he created knowing that they would suffer, because they would not or perhaps could not choose salvation. So you are not arguing for the goodness of God, just your own special status. Even flawed, sinful humans can be good and loving to a select few others. If God has no more moral authority than man, then we are back to a cosmic tyrant.
-NoCapo
A worthy set of pearls, unfortunately, cast fruitlessly to be trampled.
A worthy set of pearls, unfortunately, cast fruitlessly to be trampled.
Nah. I'm surrounded by trees that grow out of bare rock. Truth - life - will find a way.
No Capo, and other rationalists, must make their voices heard. I count myself among them.
At the fringe.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
