(October 22, 2013 at 6:44 pm)genkaus Wrote: The thing about theists you should understand that they start with the assumption of god's existence and then proceed to reinterpret all concepts and definitions accordingly. Once you get that, all their nonsensical arguments start making so much sense.
Indeed.
Quote:For example, consider the word "objective". Normally, when you consult a dictionary as to its meaning, you'd find something like "determined by object, instead of the subject". But god is the one who determines everything and anything. So, if god is the subject considering an object, then nothing can be considered objective. So, what the definition "really" means is "determined by object instead of 'human' subject". And since everything that is not determined by humans is determined by god, then objective becomes synonymous with god-given.
Just try it out. When they say, "objective laws of logic or nature cannot exist without a god", what they mean is "god-given laws cannot exist without a god".
Well you see, that won't work for theists. With regards to the laws of logic. Let's take the laws of identity and noncontradiction. Those are self-attesting truths. To deny the law of identity and noncontradiction, you must first assume them as true and then deny them after doing so. That's the purest distillation of a self-defeating argument.
So a theistic claim you brought up as hypothetical ('everything not determined by humans is determined by God') are inescapably incoherent. That is one of the fatal flaws of presuppositional apologetics.
Quote:Same goes for objective moral values and here, objective purpose. The point here is not that you were imbued with a purpose from a being higher than you, the point is that you must be imbued with a purpose form god.
I don't get this. Isn't this voided by my argument about the fact that that kind of purpose necessitates a value judgement, and thus by definition cannot be imbued from the outside? Take this. Say that the hammers we created were conscious agents. Would the fact that we (or hypothetically God) created them with the intention that they be used to hammer things necessitate that they make the value judgement that such was in fact the value judgement they ought to make?
That would seem to be cut by the fact-value problem, yes?
Quote:Consider presenting this argument to a theist:
My government is a being higher than me. My government has given me this purpose to spy on another country. So, I regard it as an objective purpose of my life to do so.
Do you think he'd accept this argument as evidence that one could have an objective purpose without god? I wouldn't bet on it.
My 'higher being' term was ambiguous, but I meant in the sense of beings more powerful and such than humans. But maybe that is irrelevant to your response above. I think my contention that you have to make a value judgement would be the appropriate response here as well.
Quote:Atheistic view from a theistic POV becomes pretty obvious as well: Atheists don't believe in god, so they don't believe in a god-given purpose. Which means they don't have an objective purpose in life.
Well, doesn't that make their position entirely circular? God exists therefore objective purpose exists (assumption); Objective purpose exists (and as Bill Craig says, "And deep down we all know it") therefore God exists. That's the same thing as the moral argument. Neither God nor objective purpose have been demonstrated to exist, yet each are being used to argue for the other.
Quote:Wait, here's another one: Atheists don't believe in god, so they must not believe in everything that god has created. And since god has created everything, then atheists must not believe in anything.
I've heard that before and it's so stupid that unpacking it is just uninteresting. :X
Quote:Regarding your given reasons as to why a theist would choose "god's purpose", the last one should read:
- Acknowledging that any purpose god imbues anyone with is, by definition, objective.
Given that, your argument fails at P1. God can imbue humans with a purpose and it would be an objective purpose. God can imbue angels with a purpose and it would be an objective purpose. And god can imbue himself with a purpose and it would be an objective purpose. On the other hand, if the imbuer happens to be anyone else, then it's not objective anymore.
I don't think that works for reasons listed earlier.
Quote:The real fun begins when you point it out that they are, in-fact, equivocating between god-given and objective. Then they go onto a long-winded rant about god's nature and what he is and his consistency and so on and so forth.
Which sounds both entertaining mental contortions and facepalm-y.
