RE: Why Yahweh? (Or Allah, or Zeus, etc.)
October 23, 2012 at 9:42 pm
(This post was last modified: October 23, 2012 at 9:42 pm by Mystic.)
(April 13, 1974 at 12:26 pm)genkaus Wrote: Except, as we have seen, currently the best "organization" in teh society does not stem from any religion but from the principles of secularism.
That's what you believe (and I personally do agree) but Muslims believe Islamic laws to be applied by government are superior to secular laws.
You are of course attacking the conclusion. However, you don't show what premise you disagree with that leads to the conclusion?
Is it that humans know how to organize society better then God?
Quote:a) If that morality is dependent on god then its not objective morality and
How does that work? But anyways, irrelevant, due to the fact whether morality needs God or not, God knows (objective) morality and can provide best guidance of it.
Quote:b) If any morality is to be found to be objective, then then it must be found so by reasoned discourse - not divine command. Ethics is the domain of philosophy, not religion.
Isn't this circular, I provide an argument that shows divine command/religious guidance in ethics, and you simply state something that attacks the conclusion, rather then addressing the argument?
Of course I do agree with your conclusion, but it seems circular as opposed to addressing the argument.
Quote:Except, the existence of so many religions would mean that he is extremely poor at communicating.
Why would that be? Islam for example assumes religions were mostly originally founded on revelations from God but got corrupted. What does humans corrupting revelations have to do with God being bad communicator?
Anyways, whether he did good job communicating or not, is not addressing the argument. What's the flaw in the argument.
You can't simply attack the conclusion, without showing why the premises don't lead to it or which premise that factors in leading to it, is wrong.
