Van Tillian/Clarkian Presuppositional Apologetics.

[DeistPaladin]

Actually you are engaging in special pleading, you admitted that you cannot justify the laws of logic because they are your ultimate standard for truth

Strawman. I use logic because I like the results. I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself here. Harping on the same argument already addressed is a logical fallacy called "argumentum ad nauseum".

and yet you are asking me to justify God’s wholly good nature even though it is my ultimate standard for good. I provided an answer the dissolved the dilemma, God appeals to something that is neither outside of Himself nor arbitrary, so now you are really just moving the goalposts.

Ah, defending an act of begging the question with circular argumentation, how very efficient. You know that Yahweh is good because he's your ultimate standard for good and that's why you know you can use him as an accurate ultimate standard for good because he's your ultimate standard for good.

Additionally, even if your assertions about my justification for the use of logic had any merit, it would be irrelevant to our discussion because it's nothing more than a logical fallacy called Ad Hominem Tu Quoque (or "oh yeah, well, you must be wrong because your wrong about something else.")

Moving the goal posts? How?

Definitions matter, evil is defined as something contrary to God’s decreed will, so you are absolutely right, by definition none of God’s decrees can be evil just like a married man by definition cannot be a bachelor.

More classic examples of "begging the question"! You've defined whatever Yahweh wills as "good" and anything contrary as "evil". And that's how you know he must be good. Fantastic! So when you say that Yahweh is good, you mean the tautology of "Yahweh wills what Yahweh wills". And when you say his commands are good, you know that they are because they're his commands.

You may want to sit down after typing posts like this. You must get so dizzy after running in so many circles.

Where do you get your standard of morality to call God that?

Aside from my conscience and sense of empathy, where must I?

You are behaving in a way that is inconsistent with your worldview which is never a good sign. You clearly stated that morals are determined by societies, so you would have to believe (according to your very own definition of morality) that if one society believed rape was morally acceptable and raped the women of another society this would be am acceptable action.

Another strawman. I've said no such thing.

Your worldview can only give you moral conventions but you steal from my worldview and appeal to universal moral laws.

How?

Where in Numbers does it say sex slaves? Where in Deuteronomy does it say sex slaves? I see wives, and unless you believe the purpose of a wife is to serve as a sex slave I see no logical reason to believe the Bible is condoning rape here.

And what do you suppose it means when the Bible discusses virgin females taken as war booty? They're taken to be house servants? (that was one apologist's claim) Then why do they have to be virgins? And you can slap the label "marriage" on it to sanitize it if you wish but it's still rape.

Here's the rule:
Sex with a slave = rape (even if you marry the slave). She has to be able to say "no" without fear in order for it not to count as rape.

Another worn out canard, consensual fornication was outlawed under Jewish law just like un-consensual fornication.

Unless she was one of your concubines.

Uh oh, punishing rapists with death?

Again, only if she was betrothed or married to another. Not impressed.

I cannot help if your reasoning appears ridiculous when drawn out to its logical conclusion.

Except you didn't draw it to any logical conclusion. That's what "appeal to ridicule" means. You can use ridicule in an argument but the ridicule must faithfully represent the absurdity of an argument. What you did was strawman my arguments in a way so silly as to not even warrant a response.

You seem to be appealing to the good of the whole over the good of the individual, where do you get the authority to make such a claim?

What claim have I made? To note what behaviors promote survival for a given species has nothing to do with the use of any authority.

I still fail to grasp why you feel the Bible has a copyright on morality.

It doesn’t, only the transcendental kind, which you keep appealing to.

OK, why do you feel the Bible has a copyright on universal morality?

In what way do you feel they are demonstrated to work?

Well say a society believed that snakes were evil and magical creatures which should be avoided, this in turn would prevent the people in this society from ever being bitten by a venomous snake.

In this case , I would say science and reason can provide the same benefits with greater precision. Knowing the true reasons why something is so can allow you to know when the rules apply and how. For example, not all snakes are poisonous.

Well the founders of modern science, Bacon, Newton, Galileo, and Kepler all disagree with you. Their reformed views on nature and scripture directly fueled their science because it gave them a foundation for the principle of induction.

Appeal to authority and false. Newton was a unitarian who soundly rejected the Trinity as an anathema to his god. Galileo rejected the teachings of scripture, that the sun moved about the earth.

And I keep asking you for chapter and verse where the Bible helps facilitate critical thinking and reason. I've not seen any reason offered, scriptural or otherwise, to suggest that universal morality or reason come from Yahweh.

Already did, no other worldview can account for the preconditions of knowledge as you have demonstrated several times already, so unless you want to admit we can’t know anything, then you are only left with the Christian God. It’s proof by negation.

My brain hurts trying to take in all the fallacious reasoning provided in the above paragraph. First, as a non believer, I don't have to account for anything. The burden of proof is on you, not me. Second, you present the false dilemma that the only alternative to Christianity is solipsism. Third, your entire argument smacks of argument from ignorance. "You can't prove me wrong so I must be right" or "We don't know so I'll fill in the blanks with GodDidIt or GodWillsIt until you have something better."

That's three identifiable fallacies in a single run on sentence. Even for Christian apologist standards, I think that's a record.

So he is using sensory input, what he hears other real people tell him and the fact he does not see the girl age, to verify or falsify his other sensory input. That’s circularity, there is nothing wrong with it, but it is circularity.

It's not circularity since there were multiple sources of information and multiple pieces of information considered. He made a choice of what seemed most likely to be true given the weight of evidence.

Another red herring, I am not arguing for solipsism,

You are presenting solipsism as the only alternative to Christianity. You claim that scripture gives you an out on this one. I've repeatedly asked for chapter and verse but you have yet to provide any.

Anecdotal Fallacy.

Nope. An accusation. You are doing what I've seen all other Christians do. They see their god as wanting what they want and then use it as their justification to do what they wanted to do all along. I have accused you of doing the same thing. How do you plead?

That’s because that is a statement you have yet to even prove to be true. How do you prove a law of logic ‘works’?

As I keep telling you, I know it works because it provides results that I like and has sufficient predictive value as to give me confidence that science and reason will continue to do so.

You keep trying to argue against positions I have never taken (that I want an irrational society)

I have kept saying that you are free to do so if that's what you prefer. That you do not and have agreed with me that rational societies are better means you understand why. You are therefore being a sophist in claiming that you don't understand my justification for the use of science and reason.

GodWillsIt doesn't give you any cover, both because GodWillsIt and GodDidIt are unsatisfying answers to any "why" questions and because you can't demonstrate either what scriptural passages you draw inspiration from or how such a value squares with the use of faith.

And my name isn't "bub".

Equivocation, you are defining faith differently than scripture does but then using your definition of faith to argue against scripture’s commandment for believers to have faith. Bad bad boy. Not sure why you would redefine faith that way, we already have a word that means that very thing, credulity.

Well, let's go to the dictionary, then.

World English Dictionary
faith (feɪθ)

— n
1. strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence
2. a specific system of religious beliefs: the Jewish faith
3. Christianity trust in God and in his actions and promises
4. a conviction of the truth of certain doctrines of religion, esp when this is not based on reason

Belief without reason and against all reason. So you believe that the Christian faith fosters the use of reason and critical thinking. We have a paradox. Are you starting to understand?

---

ARGUMENT FROM ARGUMENTATION
(1) God exists.
(2) [Atheist's counterargument]
(3) Yes he does.
(4) [Atheist's counterargument]
(5) Yes he does!
(6) [Atheist's counterargument]
(7) YES HE DOES!!!
(8) [Atheist gives up and goes home.]
(9) Therefore, God exists.

Perfect Rhythm. That's also a great example of "argumentum ad nauseum". Keep saying the same discredited argument over and over until you "win" when step 8 happens.