I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!

[amw79]

---

If you, or I - or anyone else for that matter - can't think of another way, that doesn't mean you've shown that objective morality can't exist without God. You still lack evidence for that. It's a mere assumption.

I didn't say it because I "can't think of any other way". I said it as an affirmation of the nature of the case in question. The nature of the question necessitates that for there to be moral or logical truth, which transcends subjective minds, it has not transcended the realm of subjective mind if there is not an objective mind.

Besides, I personally see it as totally and utterly pointless untill there's any evidence of a God.

Because you don't understand the importance of coherence. There is evidence/a foundation for monotheism, anyway, but that has nothing to do with this argument.

So it doesn't have to be objective...unless you want to make valid judgements? But there's no evdience for objective morality so validity itself is subjective!

It is subjective so long as there is no objective mind which transcends subjective minds. If there is, it is not.

However, what you have completely ignored is that this is only the part about moral truth being founded in an objective foundation in the epistemic structure of Christianity.

I don't see how Christianity has anything to offer on the matter. Or how on earth you've shown that? What's special about it? There are plenty of philosophies out there, and there's Christianity. They all come with values, etc. And there's no evidence that any of these values are objective ones, with or without Christianity.

I haven't even said theres anything "special" about Christianity. There isn't anything "special" about it, it's a common and very universal religion, present in the entire world.

All I've done is analyse an atheistic worldview and epistemic structure, and a Christian one, because that's relevant for this debate.

It's just like - You: "Without God there is no objective morality!" Me: "So? Who cares because neither exist!"

If that is the case, what are you complaining about?

Evidence is an agnostic matter.

It's not an agnostic matter when you bring it into an argument which is entirely epistemologically analytic and therefore precedes any notion of truth or evidence to analyse the very conceptions of truth and evidence in various epistemic structures.

Your problem is that you're defining "subjective" to equal 'meaningless' and 'merely', and therefore claiming that any subjective judgements about morality or logic is invalid.

I am not defining "subjective" as "meaningless". I am defining it in it's proper sense: pertaining to the (individual) subject. As soon as logical and moral truth becomes subjective (because there is no God - no objective mind), it is therefore no more authoritative than a persons favourite colour. One day 1+1 might equal 2, another day it might equal 5. And one day or age killing babies for fun might be alright; in another age it is not.

I think this is nonsense, and therefore since your argument is based on god being the source of objective truth, have asked you on several occasions to provide evidence for this premise. Which you still haven't, and can't do.

I can do it, and have done it in this very thread. I presented two arguments, the epistemological one and the aposteriotic argument for Gods existence. But that is not the matter I am dealing with in the analytic one.

---

Jon Paul I hate to be the bearer of bad news but all religion including Christianity are a product of the human mind.In fact the concept of god or gods are products of the human mind thus taking away the so called transcendental source of your belief system.Man created God in his image,not the other way around.Gods are derived from myths and legends and are a product of the ignorance of man on how things worked in nature and the origins of our species.

---

This is your view of things, which is neccessary for you as an atheist. And my epistemological argument only clarifies exactly that. It doesn't take a stance on whether God exists or not: it says that in atheism, all notions of "truth" and religion and morality is the product of human subjective minds.

Jon I disagree with you completely,your entire argument falls apart without the existence of a God.

I have an argument for the existence of God, the aposterioritic argument. But this is the epistemological argument you are addressing, which takes no stance on whether God exists; which takes no side; which simply analyses the epistemic structure of the Christian worldview and the atheist worldview.

And therefore although you claim that this is an "analytical argument" like it or not it still starts from the premise of the existence of God and if that can't be proven then this entire discussion is pointless.

It exactly DOES NOT. It does not claim that God exists. It does not claim that he doesn't. My aposterioritic argument does that; my epistemological argument takes no stance.

I do agree with you that my type of morality is subjective and a creation of the human mind as is your god and your religious beliefs.

EXACTLY. You as an atheist, believe exactly the viewpoint that the argument predicts of atheism. So what is your problem? Just stop complaining when you agree with it.

The problem only arises when you ignore the part about logical truth, which is no different from moral truth. Because obviously, you don't care about moral "truth", it's an alien concept. But logical truth you probably won't sacrifice.

---

As soon as logical and moral truth becomes subjective (because there is no God - no objective mind), it is therefore no more authoritative than a persons favourite colour. One day 1+1 might equal 2, another day it might equal 5.

This is where we differ, and I say that developed cultural consensus provides authority to morality from which truths are developed. You can apply exactly the same to logic, which is an evolved, developed, human cultural phenomenon, not a transcendent phenomenon. Cultural, moral and scientific consensus are how truths are arrived at.

Aside from the above clarification, I have no problem with your epistemological argument, as it's pretty much stating the obvious.

Your aposterioritic argument is just a theologically wordier version of "there must be a 'first cause'", but simply positing that "Goddditit" may solve the 'first cause' problem for you, but is not evidence in itself, and MUST be backed up, as it's entirely unsatisfactory for non-theists.