RE: Van Tillian/Clarkian Presuppositional Apologetics.
December 2, 2011 at 9:12 pm
(This post was last modified: December 2, 2011 at 9:15 pm by Statler Waldorf.)
(December 2, 2011 at 9:00 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Yes, it does. I said the "meter" is an invented term that we've all agreed on to communicate and measure distance. We could just as easily use a different measurement.
Again, your point is irrelevant, “good” is just a term to describe God’s actions, we could have described them in some other language.
Quote: This is apples and oranges with your claim that an imaginary character is a measure of what is good without any explanation as to how that works.
It works just like the meter stick, that’s the point; in order to avoid an infinite regression of standards an ultimate standard must be invoked. God is the ultimate standard for goodness, Truth, justice, power, and so on. So to ask how you know an ultimate standard is indeed what it is an ultimate standard for (i.e. God and goodness, meter sticks and meters) is absurd and logically incoherent.
Quote:But physical distance is the same whether it is measure in yards or meters. Distance doesn't get shorter when you switch units of measure.
We are talking about the standards for those units of measures.
Quote:[
Says who? What is this assertion based on? How can we use Yahweh to measure goodness in some practical and consistent way? By this, I mean you will make the same measurement that I would. Someone else should be able to repeat the experiment and come to the exact same conclusion.
People can and often do. God cannot lie because it is contrary to His character, therefore we can deduce that it is evil to lie. If we lie, we are acting in a way that falls short of God’s moral character and therefore are acting in a way that is falling short of goodness.
Quote: Given that there are thousands of different Christian denominations, I highly doubt it.
Yet, they all use the same Bible, sounds like a problem with the thousands of different people, not the Bible itself.
Quote:Others who don't post here can also judge for themselves. It may surprise you but nobody has appointed you the final arbiter of who won every debate.
Logic is the final arbiter, people’s opinions are irrelevant.
(December 2, 2011 at 9:05 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Reductio ad absurdum. Google it, and then we'll talk about who ought to be doling out the cash ( I hear wiki has an entry on this). I'm seriously considering buying a sword, and etching that on the blade.
Since you are now claiming to be a logician, then you should know that reducing an argument to absurdity is not the same thing as appealing to ridicule. You have to actually use logical demonstration to reduce an argument to absurdity, not just laugh at it.
