(August 12, 2009 at 7:39 pm)Jon Paul Wrote: I have not equivocated created with uncreated. You are welcome to address a "created logical order" version of TAG, but it is not the real TAG you would be addressing then.No, what you have done is said that God is the source of morality but not the creator of morality. This is something you have yet to explain to a sufficient level. How can morality be uncreated yet still present. If morality is sourced from God, then surely that means God is creating this "morality field" of which we are part? You'll have to explain it a bit better, because I think I speak for every atheist on these forums when I say "I have no idea what you are going on about". So please, explain what morality is in a way that is easy to understand without all the metaphysical/philosophical language.
Quote:The argument does not attempt to "explain it", in the sense of explaining how humans discovered or developed awareness of moral or logical principles, which is not even the concern of the argument. The concern of the argument is the origin of the conceptual reality of the logical order in the universe to begin with, as it actually exists regardless of the human awareness or limits of human awareness about it.Can you prove that logical order to the universe actually exists, and that it isn't just born out of the human mind? Everything we experience goes through our perception (in our brain), so the other explanation is that the universe has no intrinsic order, but that order is simply a product of our brains. We are pattern seeking animals; this is why we see patterns in everything from clouds to inkblots. It is quite possible that the patterns extend further, and can be applied to the universe itself. This alone is another explanation that defies your TAG argument (which says that such things can only be explain through God).
Quote:You proposed the FSM, not the Islamic God.No, but why is the FSM doctrine excluded? The FSM is immaterial, omniscient, omnipotent; everything the other Gods are. The FSM created the universe with order, etc. Everything the TAG argument asks of God, the FSM provides. Please provide a rebuttal that explains (clearly) why the FSM doesn't apply as a resultant God for the TAG argument (and no dodging the question by saying "the FSM is created by man"; I'm not doing that with your points, so don't do it with mine).
Quote:That is irrelevant to the validity of the Christian worldview. You are taking that knowledge from the Christian and biblical doctrine of God, and even in it's pure doctrinal form, by it's mere conformity to the Christian doctrine of God, it is only a confirmation of the Christian worldview. Whether you actually call it "the Christian God" or not is irrelevant, what is relevant is the doctrinally biblical content of it.How is the Christian worldview "valid", anymore than a secular humanist worldview? The Christian worldview relies on God existing, and yet the TAG argument is a supposed proof of God which relies on the Christian worldview being true.
Circular anyone???
