(January 1, 2011 at 4:53 pm)Stempy Wrote: If that is what you meant by "God is morality" then fine. But there is no necessity for an advocate of Option 3 to say that "We know God is good because God is good". In fact, that statement has nothing to do with the ontology of morality (which is the what the traditional Moral Arguments are about) but epistemology.
So you're distinguishing the nature of being side of this argument with the nature of our knowledge side? I'm just trying to follow your thinking here.
So why do you feel it's not necessary for an advocate of a position to explain what is meant by that position?
I believe I have shown, epistemologically speaking, that the argument is a tautology. You've created a definition and then used the definition to prove your definition is true. I have reason to suspect that such circular reasoning is a mental slight of hand employed to dodge the dilemma of the first two options.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
