Formally Disproving Divine Command Theory

[FallentoReason]

I'd say you're guilty of a bait and switch.


This is not a formal disproof of divine command theory, but simply a causistic examination of particular interpretations and applications of divine command theory. So not only does it fail to accomplish its apparent goals, it seems to be the case that you aren't even remotely aware of what a formal disproof of divine command theory would be. (And this both because you appear to lack the philosophical sophistication in these matters as well as not truly understanding the meaning and nature of a formal proof.)

Anyway.... I'm out.

No, you're right. Upon further thought, I've realised that what I have proven here is that the DCT subscribers have a choice to make: to stick to their guns and let an atrocity happen (in this case, someone dies) OR to follow their instincts and defy DCT, which in my opinion strongly suggests that moral absolutes don't exist because they aren't very practical to live by.

In essence, I have shown that DCT is at least a weak theory. But if the believer in DCT chooses not to save the person from the beginning, then I'll leave them to question their ethics on their own.

---

From "Morality IS without God" (http://atheistforums.org/thread-18077.html)

The commands God gives come from who He is, not from what He deems right or wrong. So, God's objective morality comes from who He is, this encompasses far more than we can understand, God says " your ways are not my ways and my thoughts are not your thought." In other words, God knows way more than we can begin to understand and His judgement will always be righteous, who is a liar and who is not will be determined by God according to who He is.

That's great GC, but the scenario shows that DCT isn't a practical way of going about morals. Moral absolutes don't seem to be logical.