(October 23, 2012 at 9:42 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: 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.
It has nothing to do with "beliefs". The superiority of secular laws can be shown objectively.
(October 23, 2012 at 9:42 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: You are of course attacking the conclusion. However, you don't show what premise you disagree with that leads to the conclusion?
Read again, it's premise no. 2. The best organization does not come form god.
(October 23, 2012 at 9:42 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Is it that humans know how to organize society better then God?
Clearly.
(October 23, 2012 at 9:42 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: 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.
If it is objective, then god's guidance is not required.
(October 23, 2012 at 9:42 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: 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?Its not circular and it does address the argument.
Of course I do agree with your conclusion, but it seems circular as opposed to addressing the argument.
(October 23, 2012 at 9:42 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: 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?
Clearly Islam knows very little about other religions to assume that the original version of a lot of religions were anything like it is now.
(October 23, 2012 at 9:42 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Anyways, whether he did good job communicating or not, is not addressing the argument. What's the flaw in the argument.
That is the flaw. By your assumption, your god would not be a poor communicator.
(October 23, 2012 at 9:42 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: 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.
You know which of the premises is wrong. I pointed that out at the very beginning. I started with "Even with the faulty premises" - referring to your assumption that god exists. Then I show how your conclusions don't match the reality.
