Before I get into your musings on ultimate standards of morality and Euthyphro's Dilemma, I feel the need to comment on why so many atheists aren't taking it very seriously. Part of it is we've been all over this ground in other posts. You aren't the first to discuss the moral argument here.
Another part has to do with what I call the pre-failure of apologetics. What is telling about Christian apologists is not what they offer but what they never offer.
Apologists have no store of magical artifacts that can heal the sick (like Paul's handkerchief) nor can they perform the kind of feats that Jesus promised they would (Mark 16). If Christians could heal the sick or cast out demons in front of scientists in a peer-reviewed setting with repeatable tests being possible, this would be compelling evidence.
![[Image: 36i84l.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i.qkme.me%2F36i84l.jpg)
Christians can't do this, it would seem.
All apologists can offer boil down to attempts at logical arguments, most of them over very abstract topics like "how can we justify the use of logic?" or "what is morality?" You'll hear many abstract ideas, mental constructs, hypothetical models, etc. This means Christianity fails to meet the burden of proof before we even examine these "arguments".
The more extraordinary the claim is, the more extraordinary the proof that is required. There is a proportional relationship at work here. If you doubt that, consider if I made a mundane claim like "I had lunch with my wife today" and contrast that with the extraordinary claim like "I had lunch with my deceased father today". The first is a mundane claim accepted on the basis of my own testimony and the absence of contrary evidence. The latter requires massive hard evidence (video footage, newspaper reports, etc) and even then skepticism would be rational.
Christianity makes claims most extraordinary and yet can offer only words and mental constructs as its "proof". It offers no hard evidence that can be repeatedly tested and peer-reviewed by the scientific community. Therefore, even if the logical arguments were sound, you have, at best, an untested and untestable hypothesis.
Hope this explains why when yet another theist comes by and says "You know, without God, how could we have logical laws in an ever changing universe..." or some other variation on that tune, we all groan and say, "Oh look, another one. Here we go again."
I'll get to your post later. But just wanted to offer a little background for your own understanding.
Another part has to do with what I call the pre-failure of apologetics. What is telling about Christian apologists is not what they offer but what they never offer.
Apologists have no store of magical artifacts that can heal the sick (like Paul's handkerchief) nor can they perform the kind of feats that Jesus promised they would (Mark 16). If Christians could heal the sick or cast out demons in front of scientists in a peer-reviewed setting with repeatable tests being possible, this would be compelling evidence.
Christians can't do this, it would seem.
All apologists can offer boil down to attempts at logical arguments, most of them over very abstract topics like "how can we justify the use of logic?" or "what is morality?" You'll hear many abstract ideas, mental constructs, hypothetical models, etc. This means Christianity fails to meet the burden of proof before we even examine these "arguments".
The more extraordinary the claim is, the more extraordinary the proof that is required. There is a proportional relationship at work here. If you doubt that, consider if I made a mundane claim like "I had lunch with my wife today" and contrast that with the extraordinary claim like "I had lunch with my deceased father today". The first is a mundane claim accepted on the basis of my own testimony and the absence of contrary evidence. The latter requires massive hard evidence (video footage, newspaper reports, etc) and even then skepticism would be rational.
Christianity makes claims most extraordinary and yet can offer only words and mental constructs as its "proof". It offers no hard evidence that can be repeatedly tested and peer-reviewed by the scientific community. Therefore, even if the logical arguments were sound, you have, at best, an untested and untestable hypothesis.
Hope this explains why when yet another theist comes by and says "You know, without God, how could we have logical laws in an ever changing universe..." or some other variation on that tune, we all groan and say, "Oh look, another one. Here we go again."
I'll get to your post later. But just wanted to offer a little background for your own understanding.
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
