I can assure you this topic has been fully explored ad neuseum with various apologists. I seem to remember one 50 some odd page thread where I try to reason with Waldork about the social contract and how morality is a function of our empathy with other sentient beings, arguments he neither seemed to understand nor find more elucidating on the topic of metaethics than "GodWillsIt".
The argument (and it's variants like TAG) has many flaws, ranging from the spurious assumption that "a god" must mean "Jesus" to the completely vapid nature of the assertion God(Verb)It. In a nutshell, here's how these arguments work:
1. Ask some abstract philosophical "why" question
2. Offer "God(Verb)It" as your answer (GodWillsIt, GodDidIt, GodDoesIt, GodIsIt, etc.)
3. Feel smug and say "nyeth nyeth, you don't know everything, therefore Jesus"
And this is as close to rational as the asylum of Christianity can be.
The argument (and it's variants like TAG) has many flaws, ranging from the spurious assumption that "a god" must mean "Jesus" to the completely vapid nature of the assertion God(Verb)It. In a nutshell, here's how these arguments work:
1. Ask some abstract philosophical "why" question
2. Offer "God(Verb)It" as your answer (GodWillsIt, GodDidIt, GodDoesIt, GodIsIt, etc.)
3. Feel smug and say "nyeth nyeth, you don't know everything, therefore Jesus"
And this is as close to rational as the asylum of Christianity can be.
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
