(January 19, 2011 at 8:55 pm)Ryft Wrote: Feel free to demonstrate how "morality is grounded in the nature and will of God" says something about God. Basic English grammar tells you the sentence says something about morality, and nothing about God. Again, referring to the nature of God says nothing about the nature of God.
Would the sentence "christmas cheer is grounded in the nature and will of Santa" at least not tell us Santa has a sunny disposition? or "a war like spirit in Romans is grounded in the nature and will of Mars", at least not tell us Mars was a tough guy? I think it would. Gramatically it tells us more about morality/christmas cheer/warmongering, it certainlay however says something (and not nothing) about god/Santa/Mars. Apols for using Santa, but you get the point.
If you want to go for these arguments then feel free to demonstrate the existence of objective moral vaules which must be present if god is the source, locus etc of morality and ta rough sketch on the method of transmission into the universe. Otherwise the argument for god being a/the source/locus etc is a bare assertion followed by an appeal to magic and mysticism.
(January 19, 2011 at 8:55 pm)Ryft Wrote: Who concluded a moral valuation about God's nature? "God is good" is a moral valuation; who made that valuation?
I did. But would you not claim god is good, omnibenevolent or maximally good? Or would you claim something else? If something else how can this entity be a source, a locus or anything else morality wise? Again of course these arguments work perfectly well in reverse and you can logically conclude that god is perfectly evil, but allows us free will to choose to do good. Perhaps you should offer your syllogistic reasoning and supporting arguments so we can understand your position better?
Quote:By Scripture—which includes the New Testament and, thus, is not strictly "the Abrahamic God" (a term that precludes the New Testament). And it is not "mere speculation" but rather an axiomatic presupposition.I don't mind if you are trying to prove Jesus, Allah, Yhwh, Lord Vishnu, Baal, Osiris, Zeus etc etc. The same point is true. How do you get from the morality arguments presented by christian apologsists to Jesus or whomever without speculation? An axiomatic presupposition in a field like science would be something like existence, exists. In theology it would seem that it is the book you happen to read?
"I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of confidence"...Doug McLeod.
