Apologetics open challenge

[robvalue]

I nearly forgot about this thread.

Here's another argument:

God cannot decide what objective morality is, or else it would be arbitrary. 
Objective morality thus cannot be created by God.
If God cannot create objective morality and decide what is, then neither can evolution, as God can create evolution.
Objective morality exists.
Thus objective morality is eternal.
Objective morality takes a perception to see.
Thus an eternal being who perceives objective morality always existed.

I don't particularly understand what this is saying, but you seem to just announce "objective morality exists" halfway through.

I don't know what objective morality is supposed to be, in what way it "exists", or why it requires anything to perceive it. You seem to be saying objectively morality is like some law of the universe like gravity.

[Mystic]

I nearly forgot about this thread.

Here's another argument:

God cannot decide what objective morality is, or else it would be arbitrary. 
Objective morality thus cannot be created by God.
If God cannot create objective morality and decide what is, then neither can evolution, as God can create evolution.
Objective morality exists.
Thus objective morality is eternal.
Objective morality takes a perception to see.
Thus an eternal being who perceives objective morality always existed.

I don't particularly understand what this is saying, but you seem to just announce "objective morality exists" halfway through.

I don't know what objective morality is supposed to be, in what way it "exists", or why it requires anything to perceive it. You seem to be saying objectively morality is like some law of the universe like gravity.

That's ok if you don't know what objective morality is. I believe it God's Name/face/light in creation and it's absolute existence is God himself. But I'm not assuming these things to be true for the argument or else it would be circular.

Like I said before, if you believe one subjective view of a certain moral issue is superior to another morally and ethically, then you believe in objective morality. No if you believe there is any goodness in any action that is real and genuine, you believe in objective morality. 

Objective morality doesn't have to mean "the most perfect act to do in a moment", just that in a moment, an action is truly good given the intention and perception of the individual.

"This perception" and "hearing" is that of a genuine true force, a true power, in the soul, that is from the light of God.

[robvalue]

I now have no idea what you're talking about I'm afraid.

[Mystic]

I now have no idea what you're talking about I'm afraid.

Do you want to move on to another argument then?

[The Grand Nudger]

LOL....Mystic, if you would be so kind as to tell me where I might find -auditory- light on the spectrum?

[robvalue]

Mystic: You're welcome to move onto another argument, sure.

I'll try my best to address it if I can understand it!

[Angrboda]

[ignoramus]

LOL....Mystic, if you would be so kind as to tell me where I might find -auditory- light on the spectrum?

If you use a spectrophotometer, it's between the ranges of Dark influence and the Light of God ...Jeez, everyone knows that! *rolls eyes*

[Neo-Scholastic]

I return your challenge with another: a formal debate of the 5 Ways of Thomas Aquinas. We may wish to change the terms of the debate some, giving more generous response times, perhaps, etc.

Please read my initial post and objections in my recent formal debate with Metis. Chad Wooters vs. Metis You may pick up where Metis failed horribly to refute any of the Five Ways by Aquinas. These should give you the advantage of knowing my arguments in advance whereas I must wait for you to present your objections. As for me, I will update my initial post for the sake of clarity and to include the 4th Way which I gave short shrift.

I await your response.

[robvalue]

Well, it's chock full of logical fallacies (the 5 ways), and I can point them all out if you want. I'm not sure it's much of a debate. What else is there to say?

And it uses the same label for the "answer" to all 5 arguments without justification. It doesn't show these are all the same thing, even if the arguments were valid.