God and Morality: Separate Issues

[Ryft]

Explain how these two statements are different. It seems to me that the "boneheaded" one is just a simple summation of your version that I've highlighted in bold.

There were three statements, not two. I will assume it was the epistemic one you ditched, so that the comparison is between statement X ("God is morality") and statement Y ("Moral order is grounded in the very nature of God"). And somehow you think both state the same thing? The difference between them is so obvious; that is, X states something about the nature of God, whereas Y states something about the nature of morality. They are two very different contexts and difficult to miss. It is because statement X identifies God as morality that I said that no capable Christian apologist would ever make such a claim, as it directly contradicts Christian theology. Statement Y does not identify God as morality; in fact, it says nothing about God at all. (Refering to the nature of God does not say anything about the nature of God.)

It's one thing to invent a definition like ... "moral order is grounded in the very nature of God" and then proceed to offer this as 'proof' to support your opinion that God is therefore required for moral order to exist.

That is using a conclusion implicitly in a premise, which I did not do; in fact, I have not presented any argument whatsoever. You are terribly confused. I have no idea who or what you are addressing here but it is neither me nor my statements.

You still have not explained how I have done this. [beg the question]

You said (Msg. 1), "The issue of whether or not God exists is irrelevant to questions of right and wrong." That is true on your presuppositions, but not on the presuppositions of those you are arguing against. That is to beg the question against your opponent's view.