Stempy Wrote:Quote:there is no necessity for an advocate of Option 3 to say that "We know God is good because God is good".Here you go, I have put in bold the entire statement that I made.
You somehow seem to think that this means:
Quote:"We don't have to explain what we mean or how we figure what we claim to be true.How you interpret me as saying this I have absolutely no idea. Have another go at reading what I originally said and see if you can interpret me as not being stupid.
The entire sentence makes no difference. The phrase "we know God is good because good is good" would be an explanation of the circular logic that supports the assertion "God is good". Hence, your statement in bold still boils down to "I don't have to explain". If I'm not understanding you correctly, please rephrase.
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
