Van Tillian/Clarkian Presuppositional Apologetics.

[DeistPaladin]

It’s not so much the word, it is what it represents. It represents a moral standard, when you tell people they should or ought to behave in a certain way you are making an appeal to morality. Moral standards have to come from a higher authority in order to hold any merit.

This is an assumption, as I'm comfortable with the idea of morals being reasoned independent of any celestial authority. To say, to use your example, that "rape is wrong", it doesn't help us understand why if we simply say "GodWillsIt". Much like "GodDidIt" is unsatisfying to our curiosity of science questions.

If you do say "This is wrong because GodSaysSo", I'd like to know how God came to that determination. If God came up with rules and thereby determined morality as a celestial lawgiver, this is not objective morality by definition. If a being just invents rules, however wise or powerful this being may be, it is by definition a subjective moral code, subject to the whims and will of this being. On the other hand, if you say that God determines moral codes through superior judgment, wisdom, knowledge, etc. as a celestial adjudicator, then morality exists outside of and independent of God. These moral codes would continue to stand if God were to cease to exist or turned out never to have existed in the first place.

Does GodWillIt because it is good or do we call it "good" because GodWillsIt?

The popular Christian answer is to find some middle ground by babbling that, as Ryft said, "morality is grounded in the very nature of God". Beyond the fact that this premise is never explained (WTF does that even mean?) it's a classic case of begging the question.

The only God who has revealed to us what these standards are would be the God of the Bible.

The above statement contradicts what you state later. Stay tuned...

If morals really were just derived by men as you say they were, then the God of the Bible should have no problem violating them and would be in no way obligated to adhere to them; so why complain about Him? So it’s just another example of how atheists borrow from Christian concepts to argue against Christianity.

Bold emphasis mine because that's what I want to ask you about. Do you feel that might makes right? Is "morality" just a question of superior strength? If there is a universal standard of morality, as you suggest, why would it not apply to all beings regardless of how powerful they are?

The reason atheists judge the morality of the Christian god is because these are the same standards by which we would judge an earthly ruler or a mortal parent. For example, no parent would be allowed to set their child on fire if the child refused to love the parent. How can we worship a god who demands love on pain of damnation?

If you would suggest that God should be held to a different moral standard than mortals, you have violated your belief in a universal moral code and reduced morality to a question of might.

So if a society all agrees that rape is now morally acceptable and begins to rape the women of other societies that is morally acceptable?

Indeed, this was true of ancient Hebrew society if the OT is any indication. Some Muslims will unabashedly call for the rape and sex slavery of non Muslims. Such societies unfortunately exist and I'm curious where you find your scriptural justification to say that Yahweh would admonish them to change.

But to your question, what makes them wrong is that very sense of empathy and the social contract I mention earlier. I would not want to be raped. I trust you would not either. So how can we not understand the pain of one who is? How can we morally allow one person to endure what we would not want for ourselves?

Societies end up with similar moral codes because they all have an innate knowledge that they are created by a God who commands them to adhere to certain moral standards (Romans 1).

First, you just contradicted your assertion that only the god of the Bible has revealed his moral code to humanity. If we intuitively understand the morality that God has ordained, why is Nature's God out of the question? If we say that our innate sense of right and wrong comes from God, it doesn't have to be a god of any scripture, Christian or otherwise. Also, if my moral compass comes from God, it can't be the god of the Bible, since that very instinct is so sickened by the evil nature of the god you worship.

If you cannot or do not justify it then you are violating the principle of sufficient reason and the debate is over. You also would have no right to tell anyone else they should behave logically if you yourself cannot justify its use, right?

Wrong. I believe in logic because it's shown to work. I want society to be more reasonable and less superstitious because it will create a better society, for me and everyone else. Science works. Religion doesn't. QED.

Nature’s god has not revealed itself to man, so it would be impossible to know anything about morality or have any justification for believing in the uniformity of nature.

You just contradicted your assertion that our internal moral compass comes from God.

How would you obtain “evidence to the contrary” without using your senses? Circularity?

See the movie, "A Beautiful Mind".

What if the only revealed word is the Natural Universe?

Then there would be no basis for knowledge or inquiry.

Science.

---

Reviewing my post, I'm not sure if I was clear as to why I justify the use of science and reason. You can't logically justify the use of logic with logic as that would be circular. That's why it's a matter of personal preference. I like living in a rational society. Rational societies also offer more freedom and a higher standard of living. This is a matter of preference. You can go live in Saudi Arabia if you desire to use faith and superstition to govern your life.