God and Morality: Separate Issues

[Ryft]

My experience has been that the amateur apologist is every bit as "skilled" as the professional apologist, since there really is no skill involved. It's not like a real academic pursuit where there's anything to know. It's just a matter of finding some canned arguments that have been recycled for centuries, skillfully using logical fallacies and mental slight of hand ...

Your unsolicited opinion is noted, but I prefer to let the readers draw their own conclusions without poisoning the well ahead of time (which is itself a logical fallacy, so bravo, mate). You may do so, of course, as you have just done here—to each his own—but I am content to let the reader draw his or her own conclusions about the skill, knowledge, and fallacies exhibited in our conversation.

Excellent. So then we agree that #3 is not a valid argument.

Wrong. The third option ("God is morality") is presumably valid, so far as I can tell prima facie—but it is not an ontological claim that either myself or Stempy (as he noted) has ever witnessed any Christian apologist making. Equating God and morality as ontologically identical creates a host of problems, never mind being inconsistent with Scripture. What is invalid, sir, is the epistemological claim described subsequently, "We know God is good because God is good." THAT is invalid, since it is viciously circular.

Neither claim (or argument) is made by any capable Christian apologist because both claims are boneheaded, with the latter being fallacious.

Since it sounds like you would not use that argument yourself, then I'm curious as to what argument you would use. ... How do you relate the two topics of morality and God's existence? Do tell.

One that is either the same or very similar to the one that Stempy alluded to, that moral order is grounded in the very nature of God and revealed prescriptively in his commands.

Actually, these fields [metaphysics and epistemology] are closely connected ...

You and I (and presumably certain others) are already very aware of that; moreover, nobody in this thread has argued or suggested otherwise. This borders on a red herring. However, their being intimately connected does nothing to refute the point I had made, that metaphysics and epistemology are separate categories. Can we agree or not, that conflating distinct and important categories is a logical error and should thus be avoided?

And, as I did, I will call you out on your failure to elaborate.

No, sir. The whole issue of "I don't have to explain" is a matter between you and Stempy. It was something you called him out on. Do pay attention, please.

What do you mean by "begging the question"?

When the very question is whether or not God is necessary vis-a-vis morality, it will not do to beg that question; that is, to assume the very thing to be proved. To do so is to commit your very own vicious circle.

Or are you content to just throw out an accusation with no explanation?

No, I am content to assume my opponent is not ignorant and can see the fallacy he committed when it is indicated to him. If he cannot, then I am content to explain it when he asks. But your gratuitous invective here is duly noted and brought to the attention of the readers.

---

---

You did a little switcharoo there ...

No, I did not. What I did was correct you, because YOU had pulled a switch there. You changed it to "fundamental properties of particles" from what Stempy had actually said, which was "properties of fundamental particles."

You would hardly say, "Goodness is to God as optional properties are to elementary particles," would you?

As an analogy to illustrate a point? Yes. As ontologically accurate? Not at all. Obviously this analogy breaks down if pressed too far; any and every analogy would, insofar as nothing in this universe compares accurately to the nature of God. They will all necessarily fail. But it is hoped that people are intelligent enough to know this within the attempted conversation.

Goodness works perfectly well without any assumption of deity ...

That simply begs the question. You are free to leave it at that, of course, but fallacious reasoning is not likely to be intellectually compelling, and is certainly bereft of logical merit.