RE: God and Morality: Separate Issues
January 25, 2011 at 9:54 am
(This post was last modified: January 25, 2011 at 10:03 am by DeistPaladin.)
(January 25, 2011 at 12:53 am)Ryft Wrote:(January 19, 2011 at 11:17 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: You're harping on a point already conceded and corrected.
It is almost embarrassing that I have to explain something so blatantly obvious, but this utter falsehood DeistPaladin is trying to hide behind requires it, for he did not concede or correct anything. ....
*Sigh* Let's go to the tape again.
DeistPaladin Wrote:So fine, let's replace option #3 with your statement "morality is grounded in the very nature of God".
Frankly, Ryft, you're not this slow that you couldn't comprehend this concession. I have every reason to believe from your posts that you are an intelligent person. I can only conclude that you're being deceptive here, going from harping to all-out red herring.
The issue here, to return the discussion posed by the OP, is whether belief in God and issues of morality are related. Let's keep our eye on the ball here.
Quote:Please notice that he neither conceded nor corrected anything here.
It was a short post when I conceded that point. I can't believe you missed it. Shall I and the readers conclude you are a liar, then? And a bad one at that?
Quote:"God has made no such commands," he asserts—and that's it. Just an assertion, as if my point should crumple under the weight of mere ipse dixit.
The burden of proof is on you to show that God has made commands. If you wish to use the Bible, I'll gloss over your own act of begging the question and we can discuss the morality of your god.
Quote:Is rape wrong? Is genocide and human trafficking wrong? Let us answer with a "yes" so we can proceed to what naturally follows: "According to... ?" If the answer to that question is anything OTHER than God, then a non-Christian meta-ethic is being employed and begging the very question (which is meta-ethics).
Ah, at long last, Ryft is finally engaging the issue. Thank you!
If you offer that "rape is wrong according to... God", I have to ask what you mean by this. Do you mean to say that you believe that God has declared rape to be wrong? If so, beyond your own begging of the question (you need to prove that God has, in fact, said so) this is not an objective standard of morality by definition. This is a being's law that he came up with. By definition, this is a subjective decision, however wise or powerful that being may be.
If by "rape is wrong according to... God", you mean that rape is objectively wrong and God has made this determination, then this objective standard of morality exists outside of God. Rape would continue to be wrong if God ceased to exist. Rape would continue to be wrong if it turned out that God never existed in the first place.
If by "rape is wrong according to... God", you mean that such moral judgments are grounded in the very nature of God, you have begged the question. You've assumed that God (1) exists and (2) is the source of moral judgment. Meanwhile, you've offered nothing that contributed to our understanding of what morality is. "GodWillsIt" is every bit as unfulfilling an answer to philosophical questions as "GodDidIt" is to our scientific curiosity.
Quote:Could anyone else out there successfully explain to DeistPaladin that identifying an argument is not the same as making the argument?
...and we go to the tape again, this time with the proper sections in bold for those who are pretending to be slow.
Quote:DeistPaladin Wrote:
... 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.
Ryft Responded:
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.
I asked a question. You answered it.
Again, I can't believe you're really this stupid, Ryft. I have to conclude that you're being deceptive.
Quote:Although I have explained in various ways how he begged the question, each time a little more specifically until I was being incredibly precise, he still wishes to stand there and pretend that I have not. There is nothing more I can do.
Normally, when you accuse someone of a logical fallacy, you point out where and how they did so. See above for an example of how you suggest someone has begged the question. You point out where the invalid assumption is that formed the basis of their argument.
Quote:It is interesting though, isn't it? He calls for "reasoned, well-supported counter arguments" in favour of "pompous, dismissive hand-waving"—
—but says things like "not the spoiled, tantrum-throwing, blood-thirsty, genocidal, emotionally-unstable, brutal, scientifically-ignorant, narcissist found in your ancient superstitious badly-written rabbinic scribblings that you call a God."
Well, if you're going to say that your god is the basis for moral judgment, the morality of your god becomes an issue.
(January 25, 2011 at 12:53 am)Ryft Wrote: (1) If God does not exist, then morality does not exist.
(2) Morality exists.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
Point 1 is another great example of begging the question. Why can't morality exist without God?
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
