ARGUMENT FROM ARGUMENTATION
(1) God exists.
(2) [Atheist's counterargument]
(3) Yes he does.
(4) [Atheist's counterargument]
(5) Yes he does!
(6) [Atheist's counterargument]
(7) YES HE DOES!!!
(8) [Atheist gives up and goes home.]
(9) Therefore, God exists.

(August 24, 2011 at 5:04 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Actually you are engaging in special pleading, you admitted that you cannot justify the laws of logic because they are your ultimate standard for truth

Strawman. I use logic because I like the results. I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself here. Harping on the same argument already addressed is a logical fallacy called "argumentum ad nauseum".

Quote: and yet you are asking me to justify God’s wholly good nature even though it is my ultimate standard for good. I provided an answer the dissolved the dilemma, God appeals to something that is neither outside of Himself nor arbitrary, so now you are really just moving the goalposts.

Ah, defending an act of begging the question with circular argumentation, how very efficient. You know that Yahweh is good because he's your ultimate standard for good and that's why you know you can use him as an accurate ultimate standard for good because he's your ultimate standard for good.

Additionally, even if your assertions about my justification for the use of logic had any merit, it would be irrelevant to our discussion because it's nothing more than a logical fallacy called Ad Hominem Tu Quoque (or "oh yeah, well, you must be wrong because your wrong about something else.")

Moving the goal posts? How?

Quote:Definitions matter, evil is defined as something contrary to God’s decreed will, so you are absolutely right, by definition none of God’s decrees can be evil just like a married man by definition cannot be a bachelor.

More classic examples of "begging the question"! You've defined whatever Yahweh wills as "good" and anything contrary as "evil". And that's how you know he must be good. Fantastic! So when you say that Yahweh is good, you mean the tautology of "Yahweh wills what Yahweh wills". And when you say his commands are good, you know that they are because they're his commands.

You may want to sit down after typing posts like this. You must get so dizzy after running in so many circles.

Quote:Where do you get your standard of morality to call God that?

Aside from my conscience and sense of empathy, where must I?

Quote:You are behaving in a way that is inconsistent with your worldview which is never a good sign. You clearly stated that morals are determined by societies, so you would have to believe (according to your very own definition of morality) that if one society believed rape was morally acceptable and raped the women of another society this would be am acceptable action.

Another strawman. I've said no such thing.

Quote:Your worldview can only give you moral conventions but you steal from my worldview and appeal to universal moral laws.

How?

Quote:Where in Numbers does it say sex slaves? Where in Deuteronomy does it say sex slaves? I see wives, and unless you believe the purpose of a wife is to serve as a sex slave I see no logical reason to believe the Bible is condoning rape here.

And what do you suppose it means when the Bible discusses virgin females taken as war booty? They're taken to be house servants? (that was one apologist's claim) Then why do they have to be virgins? And you can slap the label "marriage" on it to sanitize it if you wish but it's still rape.

Here's the rule:
Sex with a slave = rape (even if you marry the slave). She has to be able to say "no" without fear in order for it not to count as rape.

Quote:Another worn out canard, consensual fornication was outlawed under Jewish law just like un-consensual fornication.

Unless she was one of your concubines.

Quote:Uh oh, punishing rapists with death?

Again, only if she was betrothed or married to another. Not impressed.

Quote:I cannot help if your reasoning appears ridiculous when drawn out to its logical conclusion.

Except you didn't draw it to any logical conclusion. That's what "appeal to ridicule" means. You can use ridicule in an argument but the ridicule must faithfully represent the absurdity of an argument. What you did was strawman my arguments in a way so silly as to not even warrant a response.

Quote:You seem to be appealing to the good of the whole over the good of the individual, where do you get the authority to make such a claim?

What claim have I made? To note what behaviors promote survival for a given species has nothing to do with the use of any authority.

(August 22, 2011 at 10:03 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: I still fail to grasp why you feel the Bible has a copyright on morality.

Quote:It doesn’t, only the transcendental kind, which you keep appealing to.

OK, why do you feel the Bible has a copyright on universal morality?

(August 22, 2011 at 10:03 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: In what way do you feel they are demonstrated to work?

Quote:Well say a society believed that snakes were evil and magical creatures which should be avoided, this in turn would prevent the people in this society from ever being bitten by a venomous snake.

In this case , I would say science and reason can provide the same benefits with greater precision. Knowing the true reasons why something is so can allow you to know when the rules apply and how. For example, not all snakes are poisonous.

Quote:Well the founders of modern science, Bacon, Newton, Galileo, and Kepler all disagree with you. Their reformed views on nature and scripture directly fueled their science because it gave them a foundation for the principle of induction.

Appeal to authority and false. Newton was a unitarian who soundly rejected the Trinity as an anathema to his god. Galileo rejected the teachings of scripture, that the sun moved about the earth.

And I keep asking you for chapter and verse where the Bible helps facilitate critical thinking and reason. I've not seen any reason offered, scriptural or otherwise, to suggest that universal morality or reason come from Yahweh.

Quote:Already did, no other worldview can account for the preconditions of knowledge as you have demonstrated several times already, so unless you want to admit we can’t know anything, then you are only left with the Christian God. It’s proof by negation.

My brain hurts trying to take in all the fallacious reasoning provided in the above paragraph. First, as a non believer, I don't have to account for anything. The burden of proof is on you, not me. Second, you present the false dilemma that the only alternative to Christianity is solipsism. Third, your entire argument smacks of argument from ignorance. "You can't prove me wrong so I must be right" or "We don't know so I'll fill in the blanks with GodDidIt or GodWillsIt until you have something better."

That's three identifiable fallacies in a single run on sentence. Even for Christian apologist standards, I think that's a record.

Quote:So he is using sensory input, what he hears other real people tell him and the fact he does not see the girl age, to verify or falsify his other sensory input. That’s circularity, there is nothing wrong with it, but it is circularity.

It's not circularity since there were multiple sources of information and multiple pieces of information considered. He made a choice of what seemed most likely to be true given the weight of evidence.

Quote:Another red herring, I am not arguing for solipsism,

You are presenting solipsism as the only alternative to Christianity. You claim that scripture gives you an out on this one. I've repeatedly asked for chapter and verse but you have yet to provide any.

Quote:Anecdotal Fallacy.

Nope. An accusation. You are doing what I've seen all other Christians do. They see their god as wanting what they want and then use it as their justification to do what they wanted to do all along. I have accused you of doing the same thing. How do you plead?

Quote:That’s because that is a statement you have yet to even prove to be true. How do you prove a law of logic ‘works’?

As I keep telling you, I know it works because it provides results that I like and has sufficient predictive value as to give me confidence that science and reason will continue to do so.

Quote:You keep trying to argue against positions I have never taken (that I want an irrational society)

I have kept saying that you are free to do so if that's what you prefer. That you do not and have agreed with me that rational societies are better means you understand why. You are therefore being a sophist in claiming that you don't understand my justification for the use of science and reason.

GodWillsIt doesn't give you any cover, both because GodWillsIt and GodDidIt are unsatisfying answers to any "why" questions and because you can't demonstrate either what scriptural passages you draw inspiration from or how such a value squares with the use of faith.

And my name isn't "bub".

Quote:Equivocation, you are defining faith differently than scripture does but then using your definition of faith to argue against scripture’s commandment for believers to have faith. Bad bad boy. Not sure why you would redefine faith that way, we already have a word that means that very thing, credulity.

Well, let's go to the dictionary, then.

Quote:World English Dictionary
faith (feɪθ)

— n
1. strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence
2. a specific system of religious beliefs: the Jewish faith
3. Christianity trust in God and in his actions and promises
4. a conviction of the truth of certain doctrines of religion, esp when this is not based on reason

Belief without reason and against all reason. So you believe that the Christian faith fosters the use of reason and critical thinking. We have a paradox. Are you starting to understand?

---

(August 24, 2011 at 6:48 pm)Rhythm Wrote: ARGUMENT FROM ARGUMENTATION
(1) God exists.
(2) [Atheist's counterargument]
(3) Yes he does.
(4) [Atheist's counterargument]
(5) Yes he does!
(6) [Atheist's counterargument]
(7) YES HE DOES!!!
(8) [Atheist gives up and goes home.]
(9) Therefore, God exists.

Perfect Rhythm. That's also a great example of "argumentum ad nauseum". Keep saying the same discredited argument over and over until you "win" when step 8 happens.

(August 23, 2011 at 2:55 pm)Rhythm Wrote: You are a supremely friendly looking (and sounding) kind of dude. Nice cabinets too.

Thank you.

(August 24, 2011 at 6:55 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Strawman. I use logic because I like the results. I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself here. Harping on the same argument already addressed is a logical fallacy called "argumentum ad nauseum".

Your view of logic renders logic itself completely arbitrary and utterly meaningless. Someone else could just prefer the results derived from their own laws of logic and use them to argue against you. In fact, if this was really the reason you use logic you would not waste your time debating with anyone else because you would have no universal standard to appeal to. The fact that you are debating with me is evidence that you actually believe that the laws of logic have a universal unchanging nature to them even though you cannot account for this in your worldview. Your actions don’t jive with what you claim to believe.

(August 24, 2011 at 6:55 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Ah, defending an act of begging the question with circular argumentation, how very efficient. You know that Yahweh is good because he's your ultimate standard for good and that's why you know you can use him as an accurate ultimate standard for good because he's your ultimate standard for good.

Additionally, even if your assertions about my justification for the use of logic had any merit, it would be irrelevant to our discussion because it's nothing more than a logical fallacy called Ad Hominem Tu Quoque (or "oh yeah, well, you must be wrong because your wrong about something else.")

Moving the goal posts? How?

I have already pointed out that circularity is a necessity in everyone’s worldview. There is actually an ultimate standard for a Kilogram; yes there is a unit of mass that is kept in a vault that is declared to weigh exactly one kilogram. This kilogram is then used to calibrate scales and make other weights that weigh one kilogram. Now you could play your same silly games here and ask, “Oh so you are being circular! You know that brick is a kilogram because it is your ultimate standard for kilograms and that's why you know you can use it as an accurate ultimate standard for kilograms because it is your ultimate standard for kilograms!” Yes, I know it is a kilogram because it is the ultimate standard for kilograms. All other kilogram claims are deemed to be true or false based on how they weigh in comparison to this kilogram. Asking someone to prove the ultimate standard for a kilogram is just as logically absurd as asking a Christian to prove that God is good. God by nature is good, he is the ultimate standard of goodness and all other claims are deemed to be good or evil in comparison to God. So cease the absurdity.

(August 24, 2011 at 6:55 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: More classic examples of "begging the question"! You've defined whatever Yahweh wills as "good" and anything contrary as "evil". And that's how you know he must be good. Fantastic! So when you say that Yahweh is good, you mean the tautology of "Yahweh wills what Yahweh wills". And when you say his commands are good, you know that they are because they're his commands.

I have defined good and evil the way they are defined in scripture, if you are going to argue that scripture is somehow wrong by using these terms you are going to have to define them the way scripture does or else be guilty of equivocation. In order to say that anything God commanded was evil you wold have to provide a different ultimate standard of good that God Himself would have to answer to, this is something you have not and cannot do, so your claims carry no weight.
So what if someone likes the results they get when they beg the question? Are they therefore justified in doing so? Given your line of reason they would be.

(August 24, 2011 at 6:55 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Aside from my conscience and sense of empathy, where must I?

So you are judging God by something that is completely arbitrary? No wonder you think he is a big meanie, it is nothing more than just your personal opinion.
Is something good because your conscience tells you it is or does your conscience tell you something because it is good? Uh oh!!!!

(August 24, 2011 at 6:55 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Another strawman. I've said no such thing.

Yes you did. Care to answer the question? Would rape then be acceptable? If not, why not? I hope you don’t make an appeal to something completely arbitrary like people’s feelings of empathy for one another.

(August 24, 2011 at 6:55 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: How?

Well you first seemed to believe morals were derived from societies, which of course would make them completely conventional because certain societies could adopt different moral laws much like they do rules of music and grammar. Now you seem to be appealing to some sort of internal moral code having to do with a conscience and feelings of empathy. This of course would also be a mere convention because people experience empathy differently and not everyone even believes they have an internal conscience. So you are appealing to two views of morality that are purely conventional in nature but then appeal to some form of transcendent and unchanging morality that God would be subject to when you speak of morality in scripture. So you are just being inconsistent all the way around.

(August 24, 2011 at 6:55 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: And what do you suppose it means when the Bible discusses virgin females taken as war booty? They're taken to be house servants? (that was one apologist's claim) Then why do they have to be virgins? And you can slap the label "marriage" on it to sanitize it if you wish but it's still rape.

Here's the rule:
Sex with a slave = rape (even if you marry the slave). She has to be able to say "no" without fear in order for it not to count as rape.

So now sex within a marriage is rape? You are the one asserting this verse condones rape, so it is up to you to prove it. So far you have not done that, for all you know the marriages could have been completely consensual, which would not be rape at all. So you are going to have to provide more proof if you are going to make such an extraordinary claim.

(August 24, 2011 at 6:55 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Unless she was one of your concubines.

=== Insert here the passage and verse where God condones the rape of concubines please.

(August 24, 2011 at 6:55 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Again, only if she was betrothed or married to another. Not impressed.

Where does it say this was the punishment only if she was married or betrothed? You made a jump in logic there, if I give an outline for the punishment to be given for murder in the first degree this does not logically suggest there is no punishment for murder in the second degree as you seem to be implying.

(August 24, 2011 at 6:55 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Except you didn't draw it to any logical conclusion. That's what "appeal to ridicule" means. You can use ridicule in an argument but the ridicule must faithfully represent the absurdity of an argument. What you did was strawman my arguments in a way so silly as to not even warrant a response.

Yes I did, I gave examples of acts that everyone believes are wrong, including you, but would not be deemed wrong given your definition of morality. So if De Sade wanted others to torture him would it be morally acceptable for him to torture others? I really hope you won’t dodge this question a third time.

(August 24, 2011 at 6:55 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: To note what behaviors promote survival for a given species has nothing to do with the use of any authority.

You really are all over the place with this morality thing, so now morality is determined by what is best for the species? So if there were only 100 humans alive, and the 50 women didn’t want to have kids, it would be morally acceptable for the men to rape them in order to keep the species alive? You’ll probably dodge that question as well.

(August 24, 2011 at 6:55 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: OK, why do you feel the Bible has a copyright on universal morality?

It provides the only source for a universal code of morality that is not arbitrary and applies to all humans who have lived and ever will live.

(August 24, 2011 at 6:55 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: In this case , I would say science and reason can provide the same benefits with greater precision. Knowing the true reasons why something is so can allow you to know when the rules apply and how. For example, not all snakes are poisonous

I assume you meant venomous. So you admit that achieving results does not prove something is true? Well then you need to provide a different justification for the laws of logic since you would not allow someone to use your same justification to justify superstition.

(August 24, 2011 at 6:55 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Appeal to authority and false. Newton was a unitarian who soundly rejected the Trinity as an anathema to his god. Galileo rejected the teachings of scripture, that the sun moved about the earth.

Appeal to authority is only fallacious if the authority is an improper source. The founders of modern science are very proper source and relevant to the topic of modern science I assure you.
<= Insert passage and verse where the Bible says the sun revolves around the earth please.
Newton still derived his foundation for science from scripture, so the fact he missed the trinity is irrelevant.

(August 24, 2011 at 6:55 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: And I keep asking you for chapter and verse where the Bible helps facilitate critical thinking and reason. I've not seen any reason offered, scriptural or otherwise, to suggest that universal morality or reason come from Yahweh.

I was tempted to not answer this until you answered my De Sade question, but in the interest of Christian charity I will not ignore your question.
Christians are commanded to use their minds…
“36 ‘Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?’
37 Jesus replied: ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’
38 This is the first and greatest commandment.” – Matthew 22

Christians are taught to discern morality with their minds…
“2 Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.”

”- Romans 12

Christians are commanded to justify why they believe what they believe…

15 But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.
- 1 Peter 3

“…earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” – Jude

“4 The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds.
5 We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.
” – 2 Corinthians 10

That’s just the tip of the ice berg, but to say that Christians are not commanded to use logic and their minds to defend their position is just simply not true.

(August 24, 2011 at 6:55 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: My brain hurts trying to take in all the fallacious reasoning provided in the above paragraph. First, as a non believer, I don't have to account for anything. The burden of proof is on you, not me. Second, you present the false dilemma that the only alternative to Christianity is solipsism. Third, your entire argument smacks of argument from ignorance. "You can't prove me wrong so I must be right" or "We don't know so I'll fill in the blanks with GodDidIt or GodWillsIt until you have something better."

That's three identifiable fallacies in a single run on sentence. Even for Christian apologist standards, I think that's a record.

You seem to still believe that just because you assert something it is necessarily so.
1. Yes you do have to account for everything, the principle of sufficient reason commands you to give a reason as to why you hold certain assumptions. If you do not comply with this then your assumptions are deemed irrational. I can provide sufficient reason for every one of the preconditions of knowledge given my worldview; you have yet to give sufficient reason for any of them given your worldview. Until you do, your worldview is deemed irrational.
2. The burden of proof lies equally on both sides, I can rationally defend my worldview, until you can comply with the principle of sufficient reason you have not yet defended yours.
3. You are the one asserting there are more rational alternatives to Christianity than Solipsism, yet you have done nothing to prove this because you refuse to behave rationally by conforming to the principle of sufficient reason.
4. It’s not an argument from ignorance, I have provided a worldview that can sufficiently account for the preconditions of knowledge and you have not provided a single alternative view that can do the same. So my argument stands not refuted.

(August 24, 2011 at 6:55 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: It's not circularity since there were multiple sources of information and multiple pieces of information considered. He made a choice of what seemed most likely to be true given the weight of evidence.

He was using sensory input to verify sensory input; you can’t slice it any other way unless he was receiving information by non-sensory means.

(August 24, 2011 at 6:55 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: You are presenting solipsism as the only alternative to Christianity.

It’s not the only alternative to Christianity, but it is the only alternative that can be arrived at rationally. You have helped to demonstrate this by not giving a rational account that is consistent with your worldview for the assumptions you hold.

(August 24, 2011 at 6:55 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Nope. An accusation. You are doing what I've seen all other Christians do. They see their god as wanting what they want and then use it as their justification to do what they wanted to do all along. I have accused you of doing the same thing. How do you plead?

In order to even back this accusation up you’d have to know the internal motivations and desires of all other Christians and myself. You cannot possibly know such a thing so it is a baseless and un-provable accusation.

(August 24, 2011 at 6:55 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: As I keep telling you, I know it works because it provides results that I like and has sufficient predictive value as to give me confidence that science and reason will continue to do so.

Begging the question, “I know the method will work in the future because it always has in the past.” You are using the principle of induction to try and justify your use of the principle of induction. I know the principle of induction is valid because scripture gives me a justification for its use. You have no such justification besides your own arbitrary preferences.

(August 24, 2011 at 6:55 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: I have kept saying that you are free to do so if that's what you prefer. That you do not and have agreed with me that rational societies are better means you understand why. You are therefore being a sophist in claiming that you don't understand my justification for the use of science and reason.

No, I use logic because I know it discerns truth and God commands me to use it. You use it because you think it’s pretty or something arbitrary like that. So I use it because I can account for it in my worldview, you use it despite the fact you cannot account for it. So you are actually being irrational in your justification for using rationality.

(August 24, 2011 at 6:55 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Well, let's go to the dictionary, then.

You probably should not have done that. The Bible uses it as it is used in definition 3, Trust. You use it to mean belief without evidence. You then use your definition (belief without evidence) to argue against the Bible’s commandments for faith (trust), even though the two words are being used completely different, that’s textbook equivocation.

In the spirit of debate, I will give you the last word, unless there is something you are just dying to hear a response to or you feel I did not answer adequately. Take care, and I enjoyed the lively discussion!

---

(August 24, 2011 at 6:48 pm)Rhythm Wrote: ARGUMENT FROM ARGUMENTATION
(1) God exists.
(2) [Atheist's counterargument]
(3) Yes he does.
(4) [Atheist's counterargument]
(5) Yes he does!
(6) [Atheist's counterargument]
(7) YES HE DOES!!!
(8) [Atheist gives up and goes home.]
(9) Therefore, God exists.

Zzzzzzzzzz Zzzzzzzzzzzz

ARGUMENT FROM INCOMPREHENSIBILITY
(1) Flabble glurk zoom boink blubba snurgleschnortz ping!
(2) No one has ever refuted (1).
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM SHEER WILL
(1) I DO believe in God! I DO believe in God! I do I do I do I DO believe in God!
(2) Therefore, God exists

(I have over 300 of these fun little toys, each as sound as any argument you've put forth)
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
(Your argument from reason comes in at No 1..lol)

(August 24, 2011 at 9:22 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Your view of logic renders logic itself completely arbitrary and utterly meaningless. Someone else could just prefer the results derived from their own laws of logic and use them to argue against you.

Examples of alternative science that's shown to get results? Perhaps the Amish? They eschew modern science and perhaps they feel their lives work for them. Do I need to say it again? I will. Fine. If they're happy living "simpler" lives, I will leave them to it provided they respect my freedom as well. You are the one who's saying "should". Not me.

Quote:In fact, if this was really the reason you use logic you would not waste your time debating with anyone else because you would have no universal standard to appeal to. The fact that you are debating with me is evidence that you actually believe that the laws of logic have a universal unchanging nature to them even though you cannot account for this in your worldview. Your actions don’t jive with what you claim to believe.

The reason I'm having this debate with you is I'm trying to understand why you feel this gibberish is some kind of "proof" of Christianity.

Quote:There is actually an ultimate standard for a Kilogram; yes there is a unit of mass that is kept in a vault that is declared to weigh exactly one kilogram. This kilogram is then used to calibrate scales and make other weights that weigh one kilogram. Now you could play your same silly games here and ask, “Oh so you are being circular! You know that brick is a kilogram because it is your ultimate standard for kilograms and that's why you know you can use it as an accurate ultimate standard for kilograms because it is your ultimate standard for kilograms!” Yes, I know it is a kilogram because it is the ultimate standard for kilograms. All other kilogram claims are deemed to be true or false based on how they weigh in comparison to this kilogram.

The kilogram is a unit of measure used to record the effect of gravity on a certain mass. And yes, it's arbitrary. The French like to use kilograms. We Americans like to use ounces and pounds as units of measure. On the planet Znutinar, the Fnorbians use cakopaxzils as their unit of measure. The unit of measure is a matter of culture. The French invented their system because they decided they didn't like the way the British system worked. Maybe when we all learn about the Fnorbian method, we'll all decide to switch to theirs.

Here's the thing about that: What it measures is objective even if the method of measuring it is a subjective choice. Mass, distance, velocity, etc. don't change just because you measure them in miles, kilometers or the Fnorbian Xnepobroxises.

So to use your kilogram example, a scale that is set to measure weight in kilograms doesn't decide to measure in kilograms. It simply measures weight the way it was created. Is this your analogy of God and how It weighs out morality? Then morality exists outside of God and what is right and wrong would remain so with or without It. Your analogy gets you nowhere. Nice try though.

Quote:Asking someone to prove the ultimate standard for a kilogram is just as logically absurd as asking a Christian to prove that God is good. God by nature is good, he is the ultimate standard of goodness and all other claims are deemed to be good or evil in comparison to God.

And how have you determined this? Simply declaring "God is good", or in your case "Yahweh is good", is not convincing to anyone not indoctrinated into the cult of Christ. All you've done is beg the question.

So in the final analysis, you can't do any better than beg the question and back it up with circular reasoning?

Quote:I have defined good and evil the way they are defined in scripture, if you are going to argue that scripture is somehow wrong by using these terms you are going to have to define them the way scripture does or else be guilty of equivocation.

Logical fallacy: shifting the burden of proof. You make the claim, you back it up.

Quote:So what if someone likes the results they get when they beg the question? Are they therefore justified in doing so? Given your line of reason they would be.

Well, if your desired results are to lose credibility with your audience and be wholly unconvincing to anyone not already indoctrinated, then yes, feel free to beg the question all you like.

Quote:So you are judging God by something that is completely arbitrary? No wonder you think he is a big meanie, it is nothing more than just your personal opinion.

I think it would be an opinion shared by anyone who detests rape, slavery, genocide, torture, cruelty etc.

Quote:Is something good because your conscience tells you it is or does your conscience tell you something because it is good? Uh oh!!!!

My conscience is attempting to measure morality outside itself so that would be the latter.

Quote:Yes you did.

No, I didn't.

In fact, I corrected you when you attempted to strawman me the first time.

Now, since you've used the same strawman three times, you should do one of two things:

1. Quote me
2. Apologize

Quote:Care to answer the question? Would rape then be acceptable?

I already have answered that question. The answer was and is no.

Quote:If not, why not?

Because it infringes upon the rights of another.

Quote:I hope you don’t make an appeal to something completely arbitrary like people’s feelings of empathy for one another.

Empathy and caring about the feelings and rights of others is the foundation for our moral judgment.

Quote:Well you first seemed to believe morals were derived from societies, which of course would make them completely conventional because certain societies could adopt different moral laws much like they do rules of music and grammar.

No, I said that morality was an evolutionary strength, allowing us to form communities and work together for the good of the whole. This is not to say that every society gets it right all the time. I have made it clear my disapproval of OT society that felt rape of sex slaves was wrong. We have been evolving morally as well as biologically and have been improving for some time now.

Things that used to be accepted in our society, like slavery, mistreatment of women and other things enshrined in your "holy book", are now looked upon with disgust. These are now moral no-brainers where they used to divide our society, sometimes in great civil wars.

I believe we are improving our understanding of morality but these strides are not because of the influence of Christianity. Quite to the contrary, Christianity and the Bible have been on the wrong side of many of these issues.

Quote:So you are appealing to two views of morality that are purely conventional in nature but then appeal to some form of transcendent and unchanging morality that God would be subject to when you speak of morality in scripture. So you are just being inconsistent all the way around.

I would say you are the one who is inconsistent when you say that a being is above any moral consideration simply because it is more powerful or immortal.

Quote:So now sex within a marriage is rape?

Your strawmen attacks are getting tiresome.

No, I did not say that.

I said that slapping the label "marriage" on it makes no difference. Rape is still rape when it is without her consent.

Quote:You are the one asserting this verse condones rape, so it is up to you to prove it.

I presented a video which offered detailed analysis of rape and genocide in the Bible. In the interest of saving me time, I would appreciate it if you could watch it.

Quote:=== Insert here the passage and verse where God condones the rape of concubines please.

I was talking about casual sex. The fact that many of the holy men of the OT kept concubines would indicate that the OT god wasn't so concerned about unmarried sex.

Quote:Where does it say this was the punishment only if she was married or betrothed?

The verses you quoted. If she was not married or betrothed, the man pays a fine to her father and she has to marry him.

Quote:Yes I did, I gave examples of acts that everyone believes are wrong, including you, but would not be deemed wrong given your definition of morality. So if De Sade wanted others to torture him would it be morally acceptable for him to torture others? I really hope you won’t dodge this question a third time.

Not unless the tortures were willing. It's a violation of their rights otherwise. It astounds me you think you made a point that needed address at all, never mind a good one.

Quote:You really are all over the place with this morality thing, so now morality is determined by what is best for the species?

I didn't say that.

How many strawmen is that now? I've lost track.

(August 24, 2011 at 6:55 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: OK, why do you feel the Bible has a copyright on universal morality?

Quote:It provides the only source for a universal code of morality that is not arbitrary and applies to all humans who have lived and ever will live.

So we should all submit to kings (Romans 13)? We should all obey our masters if we are slaves (Ephesians 6:5-6)? Or kill the gays (Lev 20:13)? I can think of better books to live by.

Quote:So you admit that achieving results does not prove something is true? Well then you need to provide a different justification for the laws of logic since you would not allow someone to use your same justification to justify superstition.

Maybe I missed it. What was wrong with my answer that science provides greater precision and is instructive on the "whys" in ways that "it's just magic" is not?

Quote:Appeal to authority is only fallacious if the authority is an improper source.

...which is the case if you use scientists who lived in ancient times who happened to be living in a strongly Christian society as an endorsement of Christianity.

Quote:The founders of modern science are very proper source and relevant to the topic of modern science I assure you.

...but not relevant to Christianity or the topic of whether or not scripture fosters rationality and science.

Quote:<= Insert passage and verse where the Bible says the sun revolves around the earth please.

Joshua 10:12-13
Eccles 1:5
Psalms 19:4-6
...and verses that say the earth is fixed in place, unmovable:
1chron 16:30
Psalms 93:1
Psalms 96:10

Quote:Newton still derived his foundation for science from scripture,

Prove it or bullpucky

Quote:Christians are commanded to use their minds…
“36 ‘Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?’
37 Jesus replied: ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’
38 This is the first and greatest commandment.” – Matthew 22

FAIL! Do I really need to explain why?

Quote:Christians are taught to discern morality with their minds…
“2 Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.”

”- Romans 12

I'd respond with Deuteronomy 29:19-20

Christians are commanded to justify why they believe what they believe…

Hasn't happened yet.

Quote:You seem to still believe that just because you assert something it is necessarily so.

***SPROING***

My irony meter just overloaded.

Quote:1. Yes you do have to account for everything, the principle of sufficient reason commands you to give a reason as to why you hold certain assumptions. If you do not comply with this then your assumptions are deemed irrational. I can provide sufficient reason for every one of the preconditions of knowledge given my worldview; you have yet to give sufficient reason for any of them given your worldview. Until you do, your worldview is deemed irrational.

I've yet to hear you offer any justification aside from GodWillsIt and even this vapid reasoning is compounded by the fact you can't possibly know what God really wills. I reject your Bible the same way you reject a Muslim's Koran. To claim your revelation is special, and for that matter, your denomination's interpretation of said holy book is the correct one, is just special pleading.

Quote:2. The burden of proof lies equally on both sides, I can rationally defend my worldview, until you can comply with the principle of sufficient reason you have not yet defended yours.

No, it doesn't lie with both sides. It lies with the side that is making a claim. You have made a variety of claims, from knowing the will of God to knowing that this god is the source and measure of morality. You have offered no arguments aside from begging the question and running around in more circles than a dog chasing its tail.

Quote:3. You are the one asserting there are more rational alternatives to Christianity than Solipsism, yet you have done nothing to prove this because you refuse to behave rationally by conforming to the principle of sufficient reason.

You want more examples? How about Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and a wide variety of other religions that you reject through special pleading. All religions claim to know the truth and none offer any evidence.

As for my beliefs in using what is shown to work, I'm still mystified why I have to show any further justification.

Quote:4. It’s not an argument from ignorance, I have provided a worldview that can sufficiently account for the preconditions of knowledge and you have not provided a single alternative view that can do the same. So my argument stands not refuted.

First of all, no you have not. Secondly, even if I provided no alternative, that doesn't mean your view is true. That is the very definition of argument from ignorance.

Quote:He was using sensory input to verify sensory input; you can’t slice it any other way unless he was receiving information by non-sensory means.

But his same senses were telling him conflicting things. Just like when we find contradictions in the Bible, we know it can't always be true, so to he doubted his senses when they contradicted each other. This is my example of what it would take to get me to doubt my senses.

Quote:It’s not the only alternative to Christianity, but it is the only alternative that can be arrived at rationally.

Oh, I've already said that solipsism is technically true and stupid to live by. We assume our memory and senses are true until we see reason to think otherwise.

Quote:In order to even back this accusation up you’d have to know the internal motivations and desires of all other Christians and myself. You cannot possibly know such a thing so it is a baseless and un-provable accusation.

So why don't you tell me what your internal motives and desires are, then?

Quote:No, I use logic because I know it discerns truth and God commands me to use it. You use it because you think it’s pretty or something arbitrary like that.

This is another example of "appeal to ridicule". "I use logic because it's pretty" sounds funny but that's not what I said. What I said is I use it because it works.

You use "GodWillsIt" as your escape clause but that's bs unless you are ready to seriously suggest to me that there's even the possibility you wouldn't use reason and science unless you were a Christian.

Quote:The Bible uses it as it is used in definition 3, Trust. You use it to mean belief without evidence. You then use your definition (belief without evidence) to argue against the Bible’s commandments for faith (trust), even though the two words are being used completely different, that’s textbook equivocation.

In this case, common usage of the word. Most people when they say "faith" mean, as the dictionary itself does in its examples, religious faith or belief without evidence.

If you have evidence that God sent himself as his own son who was also him down to earth to bleed on a cross as the only means that he could convince himself to forgive us for being the sinful beings we are because an ancestor who was made from a rib ate a magic fruit after speaking with a talking snake and if we don't telepathically communicate with the holy godman who flew into the sky that he is our master he'll torture us forever because he loves us so much, than please do tell. I'm all ears.

See, you can use ridicule in an argument.

---

(August 24, 2011 at 9:57 pm)Rhythm Wrote: ARGUMENT FROM INCOMPREHENSIBILITY
(1) Flabble glurk zoom boink blubba snurgleschnortz ping!
(2) No one has ever refuted (1).
(3) Therefore, God exists.

Thanks. I needed a laugh after torturing myself with Stat's festival of strawman, circular reasoning and begging the question.

(August 24, 2011 at 5:04 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Actually it is not a prove for just any god, the God who created the world the world we live and can be intelligible would necessarily have to possess the same characteristics as Yahweh, and Yahweh by a different name would still be the God of the Bible.

But what if said god, that created the universe, never sent his son to die on a cross? This is a characteristic that wholly distinguishes Yaweh from the others. This hypothetical deity would most certainly not be Yaweh by another name.

(August 24, 2011 at 5:04 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: When you assume the existence of things you cannot account for in your worldview you violate the principle of sufficient reason which renders your actions irrational. So if you want to behave rationally you have to account for the existence of the preconditions of knowledge god that punishes people for their thoughts is wholly inconsistent with the nature of an enlightened being.

Not sure why you brought up the principle of sufficient reasoning, and I am confused as to why you think not knowing the origins of knowledge makes my actions irrational.

(August 24, 2011 at 5:04 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Well as I pointed out above, in order to preserve your rationality you are obligated to account for those things. You should at the very least account for how logic and morality can even exist in a world not created and governed by God before you try and use them to argue against God’s existence.

But you're completely missing what I said. I never said I would use the existence of knowledge as arguments against god. I said I'm agnostic on a deist god, but I do not believe in Yaweh because of his contradictory nature, among other things.

Oh man, I think DeistPaladin and I could have this discussion until judgement day, but the posts are just getting too long and cumbersome. Is there anything in particular you would like a response to DeistPaladin? If not, then I am ok with letting you have the last word.

Another 1000 or so innocent bytes bit the dust.

(August 25, 2011 at 5:52 pm)Chuck Wrote: Another 1000 or so innocent bytes bit the dust.

I will give you credit, that actually was pretty funny.