The bible and christianity are not points proffered up in JP's argument. He would acknowledge that people could be good outside religion because god can reach people directly. As to speaking about morality without god, he would probably point out that it would be absurd to speak of god not existing because then the whole spatio-temporal existence would cease to exist.
If I understand the main thrust of all his arguments, JP is saying that for our reality to be consistently logical, god has to be a part of it. What he has done is create a logical argument that, when approached by our two worldviews (atheist and theist) it only makes logical sense if there is a god.
I remain unconvinced though and see his argument as circular because to agree with it necessitates a theistic worldview.
From the wikipedia about the Trancendental Argument for God (TAG) modified to reflect at least one of JP's arguments:
(1) Morality is possible (or some other statement pertaining to logic or Knowledge)
(2) If there is no god, morality is not posssible
(3) Therefore god.
So to ask him if people could be moral without the existence of god is not necessary and it would not undermine or directly refute his argument. The problem in the argument above, is that morality is relative and there is no evidence that god has anything to do with morality. Therefore (2) is fallacious and (3) falls on its ear.
Rhizo
If I understand the main thrust of all his arguments, JP is saying that for our reality to be consistently logical, god has to be a part of it. What he has done is create a logical argument that, when approached by our two worldviews (atheist and theist) it only makes logical sense if there is a god.
I remain unconvinced though and see his argument as circular because to agree with it necessitates a theistic worldview.
From the wikipedia about the Trancendental Argument for God (TAG) modified to reflect at least one of JP's arguments:
(1) Morality is possible (or some other statement pertaining to logic or Knowledge)
(2) If there is no god, morality is not posssible
(3) Therefore god.
So to ask him if people could be moral without the existence of god is not necessary and it would not undermine or directly refute his argument. The problem in the argument above, is that morality is relative and there is no evidence that god has anything to do with morality. Therefore (2) is fallacious and (3) falls on its ear.
Rhizo
