(January 3, 2011 at 10:10 am)Stempy Wrote: All I've done is describe a theistic meta-ethic: the view that goodness is grounded in God's nature; I've not claimed to prove that. This is probably what you meant by "God is morality". I agree with you that the argument which says "If you don't believe in God then there is no sound basis for making moral judgements" (an epistemological statement) is false. But what is normally argued is that "If there is no God then there is no sound basis for making moral judgements" (an ontological statement) - although a "sound basis for making moral judgements" could refer to a number of things (such as a grounding for moral terms, or the existence of objective obligations, etc.).
Can you answer my earlier question as to why an advocate for a position doesn't need to explain what they mean by a position?
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
