Formally Disproving Divine Command Theory

[archangle]

logical fallacy.

we would first have to start with proving the bible "true" literally. That can't be the case, so using the bible to disprove the bible is as dumb as proving the bible with the bible.

The term "fallacy" generally refers to contradictions within an argument that render the argument invalid. An argument can be valid even if the truth of its premises are in doubt. If we had to "prove" every single premise, all of philosophy and scientific theory would be thrown out the window. FallentoReason is perfectly justified in making his assumptions.

err, I would look up definition. But I see why you accept his claims.
proving a bible false with a bible is not valid. It really doesn't matter if 10 of us say it is. It makes 10 of us look stupid. I mean you can accept it. It reminds me of one theist saying "yeah, I agree, he walked on water." and they use that to justify their stance. It's still Bullsit. Just like this bullsit. It just fits your belief so you find it appealing.

---

we would first have to start with proving the bible "true" literally. That can't be the case, so using the bible to disprove the bible is as dumb as proving the bible with the bible.

Wrong. I've assumed the Bible to be true, and from there one would expect things to be internally consistent within this assumed world-view, but the OP shows otherwise. That's a valid argument because I'm saying assuming p,q => ~(if p then q). The argument would be invalid if the assumptions are correct and the conclusion is false.

well, this is what they call "flat out Bullshit". You have no evidence of a literal true bible. But you run with it. If the shoes help you, ware 'em. The road of life is rocky, and we use what we can. Some need the bible as literally true and some need it laterally false to make self "better" or more "real".

I sit looking at both sides with slack-jaw-disbelief.

[FallentoReason]

well, this is what they call "flat out Bullshit". You have no evidence of a literal true bible. But you run with it.

In order to prove a point -- that the Bible doesn't work as a manual on how to live.

[Statler Waldorf]

Why? If you can't demonstrate the distinction then we have a problem.

I already did, arguments are not measured by their ability to persuade the opponent, if you still don’t see the distinction then that sounds more like a personal problem to me.

Wrong again, I find it very fortunate - having led to my very fortunate life.

Compared to what?

Why would I give a shit about divine command theory Stat?

…possibly because that’s what this thread is about, no?

I just take it for what it is, a book, and try to understand what the people writing it might have been attempting to convey - with their admittedly different frame of reference.

Now we are getting somewhere; you assume that scripture is not the Word of God ahead of time, use that assumed position to interpret scripture and then try and use your interpretation to argue that scripture is not infallible. That’s conveniently but also fallaciously circular.

I'm always impressed by the things you manage to read into your verses.

…derive from, not read into. I am impressed by what you seemingly miss in such verses.

I don;t see what you see in that verse Stat. How did you determine which was the lesser moral law?

There’s a moral hierarchy to God’s commandments given in the Old Testament and later reinforced by Christ in the New Testament; we use scripture to interpret scripture.

By reference to gods people, doing gods commands...presumably those are the good folks, and gods commands are the right ones...it really never rises above this criticism Stat.

No, there’s no such thing as a “good person” (Romans 1 and3).

Hardly, but I appreciate the christian urge to insist that others stick with biblical morality.

It was not a “Christian urge” it was a logical one, if you’re going to logically critique Biblical morality you are not allowed to use a different standard of morality to do so, that’s fallacious because it’s a form of equivocation and bait and switch.

Unfortunately I don't give any sort of primacy to your morality, nor do I think that biblical morality is in any way different than any other morality

You don’t see a difference between a theonomic standard of morality and an autonomic one? That’s absurd.

Similarly, whether or not god feels that they don't is irrelevant - as he is not "the transcendent moral law giver" either.

Actually He is, but nice try.

To be blunt Stat, you did, but I appreciate that you felt the need to use more syllables than I.

You mean “than me” rather than “than I” right? Sorry, I had to do that.

Well, it may seem a trivial point to you, but not to me. We're obviously free to hold separate opinions on what is or is not trivial with regards to morality - or the various justifications given for any of it's incarnations.

When the OP is dealing with Divine Command Theory, and you openly admit you didn’t jump into this thread in order to discuss Divine Command Theory then anything else you want to discuss in this thread is by definition trivial because it’s not relevant to what we were discussing. I’d be happy to discuss anything you wish to, but when you’re objecting to my posts that are relevant to the OP upon irrelevant grounds I am going to point it out to you.

The people described in the book are not present in the region until centuries later.

Assertion.

Two of the cities described did not exist at the time, two of the cities described (one amusingly, being jericho) had apparently been abandoned long - long before any conquest narrative.

Assertion.

Hilariously, we see that the walls of jericho fell often - but not at this time.

Assertion.

So...either there was no invasion - there was an invasion sans destruction and violence, or there was an invasion at some altogether different time.

And yet another assertion. Whew! I was worried you might actually have something other than baseless assertions to back that position up, I am sure relieved you didn’t.

[ThomM]

Let's say that I am in a situation where someone is about to die. I have the opportunity to save their life if I lie though, so I do. According to the Bible, lying is a sin and therefore I am "morally bad" if we say the Bible is 100% correct morally.

For those Christians who say that lying in this case would have been justified, then it logically follows that Divine Command Theory falls apart:

p: there exists an objective moral code
q: lying is always wrong

First, we assume two things: p and "if p, then q". From this it logically follows that q, because if p, then q. For those of you who say lying was morally right in this case, it means you're assuming ~q (i.e not q). Here we have a contradiction where you're wanting to say q & ~q, which means that our conclusion must be one of our premises (p, if p then q) in the negated form; either ~p or ~(if p then q) because that way we avoid the conditions needed for this contradiction to arise.

Surely the believer will want to salvage p meaning that we must negate "if p then q". So our conclusion is therefore "it is not the case that if there exists an objective moral code then lying is always wrong". The problem is that the Bible asserts that "if p then q" but we have concluded that ~"if p then q". A contradiction arises which means we are left with questioning the validity of p as being a true statement, unless you wish to avoid this conclusion by simply saying you wouldn't have saved the person's life by lying.

The bible is NOT morally correct - 100% of the time. Anyone who claims that

1 - Has never actually read the whole bible from the first page - and
2 - Fails to consider reality when reading the bible - ie THINK

Example - the Passover MYTH is an example of MURDER by the god - on a great scale. So is the great flood - and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah as well.

In every population there exists innocents - ie - children too young to be responsible for the own actions. EVEN religions recognize that babies cannot "sin" and that there is an age they must attain before they are responsible. The catholic church recognizes that age to be age 7. So -= to drown - blow up - burn - or kill these children would be murder - pure and simple - and immoral act.
IF you claim that we have "free will" - you cannot claim that these children WOULD have done something wrong - since it is the act that is the sin - not a "potential" which supposedly a person has the right to change their mind freely.

However - in the case of the Passover - nearly ALL of the those killed would be murders - since NONE of the general population did anything wrong to deserve to die - they had no direct control over their Pharaoh. (Only the Pharaoh himself - who would have been the first born - would have been responsible.

However - the bible also accepts other things we consider to be immoral - slavery for instance - which appears in both the old and the new testament.

Consider it you will - the Myth of Abraham and Isaac.
1 - It is claimed that the god does not tempt people to sin
Killing Isaac would be murder - Isaac had done no wrong to deserve it- so Abraham should have refused to attempt to murder his son - and would have been MORALLY correct to do so. In fact - tempting abraham to kill his son was morally wrong.
2 - Abraham called Isaac his ONLY son - which was a LIE. Not only did he have a first son - Ishmael - but the tryst that lead to that son was arranged by the god according to the story. Wow - god helped a human have a son out of wedlock - morally incorrect. The god should have known that Abraham would have a son with his wife if the god is all knowing- so Ishmael was not a necessity to begin with.

IT is the SPIN that religion puts on this story that makes it interesting - they put a spin that somehow tries to explain the story as a proof of the morality of Abraham.

Of course - since we know that ABraham was a myth - just as the rest of the claim of religions are - it never actually happened.

[ThomM]

Nowhere in the bible does it say that lying is permissable, given a certain situation.

It doesn't have to. It can be taken as a general rule of thumb regardless.

People do it here all the time. They say "Christians this and that..." and are generalizing and don't mean absolutely.

Unless it was stated "it is wrong to lie in any circumstance no matter what" or something on those lines, it's open to interpretation, that it's a general rule of thumb. That it's true 90-99% of the time.

Of course = as always -= when confronted with the truth - the theist decides to add to the story. There are always exceptions and additions that a theist can add - because of course their all knowing god LEFT OUT things from his supposed inspired word - that a MERE human has to add in.

However - the problem is there is NO mention of EXCEPTIONS in the bible - so they are just fulfilling the cafeteria religion by adding what they want - and not believing what they want - and ignoring what they want - but their belief is the ONE and ONLY

Sorry - the problem is that religion is actually NOT a basis for morality and ethics.

THE ethical and moral person does the correct things for one reason only - they are the right thing to do.

Religion adds in a REWARD for being good - and a punishment for being bad - ie - essentially an enticement that makes their claims of morality essentially false.

It is like the joke where the prostitute who says to the man that she would not go to bed with him for less than $100 dollars. When the man says $50 - the woman complains that she is not a whore - and the man replies - we have already established what YOU are - we are negotiating over the compensation.

IF you need a REWARD for being good - you are not actually being moral.