Van Tillian/Clarkian Presuppositional Apologetics.

[DeistPaladin]

In addition to the two points above by Rythem and Scarlet, let's be generous and assume that (1) Yahweh really does exist (2) Yahweh really does believe adultery is wrong and (3) Yahweh really is the omniscient, wise and benevolent being that you think he is. Lets further even assume that we're all convinced to follow his instructions since we're all convinced that Yahweh is the most trustworthy, wise and benevolent instructor we can find in all of Creation!

It's still subjective by definition.

If we say X is good because GodWillsIt, we are following rules set by another being's judgment, however wise or good that being is.

---

Yes, because we live in the New Covenant and adultery is a violation of God’s moral law under the New Covenant. Since God knows all that we think and do, it is a violation of His law regardless as to whether other men discover the act or not.

The very definition of subjectivity. Before you interject about how fookin brilliant and perfect the invisible one is; why did he place coveting your neighbors ass (presumably their equine rather than their botty), a more pressing moral issue than slavery?

Ironically, that very commandment commands us not to covet our neighbor's slave.

Exodus 20:17 Do not want anything that belongs to someone else. Don't want anyone's house, wife or husband, slaves, oxen, donkeys or anything else.

That very commandment offers tacit approval of the institution of slavery. To regulate something is to offer tacit approval of that thing's existence.

[Statler Waldorf]

And again, you're substituting your beliefs for the definition of "right" and "wrong".

Nope, I am using the definitions of right and wrong that God uses since it is how His word defines the two terms.

I'll say this again, you've told us that god doesn't like it, not why it is "wrong". If this were actually the definition of right and wrong then the two concepts are arbitrary, whatever god decided to be right would have been right, including adultery.

Yes, whatever God says is right is right by definition; whatever God declares to be wrong is wrong.

That's subjective moral authority, not objective moral authority.

Nope, it’s objective because God is not whimsical, His thoughts and actions directly result from His unchanging and perfect character.

Why should I accept his ideas of subjective moral authority as ultimate or final instead of the Nazis, who you so recently invoked?

Because God owns you, the Nazis didn’t.

The very definition of subjectivity.

Subjectivity becomes objectivity if the mind we are dealing with is perfect and infallible. God’s mind is such a mind because it is consistent with His character.

Before you interject about how fookin brilliant and perfect the invisible one is; why did he place coveting your neighbors ass (presumably their equine rather than their botty), a more pressing moral issue than slavery?

Coveting is a form of idolatry which is a crime against God Himself; slavery was a necessary social structure of the day that many people used to survive and was a “man against man” crime. The problem is Americans view slavery from the lenses of American slavery which was not at all similar to the form of servant-hood found in the Old Testament.

Apparently your absolute authority (knowing everything for all time of course) deemed this so important he authored that bit personally in stone and left slavery unmentioned.

What makes you think that the Ten Commandments were all the Bible has to say about morality? This is a moot issue though since atheists like Rhythm have already admitted that slavery would have been morally acceptable back then because the majority of people thought it was.

It's still subjective by definition.

Not really, but I will play along.

If we say X is good because GodWillsIt, we are following rules set by another being's judgment, however wise or good that being is.

That’s only subjective if that being is prone to error or whimsical, God is neither so it is a form of objectivism. Not really sure what your point is though, even if it were a form of subjectivism, Christians have a subjective standard for morality (God) that cannot error, you guys have a subjective standard of morality (mankind) that is prone to error quite often. We still win.

Ironically, that very commandment commands us not to covet our neighbor's slave.

I don’t see the word slave anywhere in that commandment.

“17(A) "You shall not covet(B) your neighbor’s house;© you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor’s." Exodus 20:17 (ESV)

That very commandment offers tacit approval of the institution of slavery. To regulate something is to offer tacit approval of that thing's existence.

According to whom? Given your various and often contradictory definitions of morality, slavery would not even be morally wrong, so I am not sure what your issue is here.

[frankiej]

And again, you're substituting your beliefs for the definition of "right" and "wrong".

Nope, I am using the definitions of right and wrong that God uses since it is how His word defines the two terms.

You see, this is what is wrong with people like you... You don't think an act is wrong if you feel that it is, you let someone else decide.

[DeistPaladin]

It's still subjective by definition.

Not really, but I will play along.

Actually, yes it is, by definition. Seriously. Look up the definition of subjective.

From dictionary.com, looking up "objective"

5. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.

8. of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.

"unbiased, not influenced by opinions, independent of thought" all preclude the answer coming exclusively from the evaluations, mandates and opinions of a single being, however wise or powerful that being may be. If morality is truly objective, it exists as part of reality which can be potentially discovered by any observer. Things objectively wrong would continue to be wrong regardless of whether Yahweh goes away to another universe, changes his mind or turns out never to have existed at all.

If you say "morality is objective and this singular being decides what that is" you have by the definition of 'objective' contradicted yourself. Objective is not a matter of decision by any being.

Now let's look up the word "subjective" on dictionary.com

1. belonging to, proceeding from, or relating to the mind of the thinking subject and not the nature of the object being considered
2. of, relating to, or emanating from a person's emotions, prejudices, etc: subjective views

This more describes a being who is making decisions on what is this or what is that.

In sum:
Subjective evaluations are decided upon
Objective facts are discovered

Clear?

That’s only subjective if that being is prone to error or whimsical,

Wrong, objectively so by definition. Subjectivity doesn't depend on the potential for error or changing one's mind later.

Example:
1. This apple I'm holding in my hand has this weight.
2. The apple has this measurable color
3. The apple I'm now throwing (no longer holding) is traveling at this velocity

All three things are measurable and are matters of factual knowledge that can be discovered. Continuing:

4. I like apples.
5. This brand of apple is the most tasty
6. You threw an apple at me and I don't like that

These are subjective evaluations based upon sensory data as filtered by the experiences, programming, prejudice and decisions of the person making these statements. Let's suppose I never change my mind about how apples taste or that everyone agrees that throwing apples at people is a bad thing to do. These evaluations do not become less subjective merely by the introduction of the possibility or unlikelyhood of change. Neither do they become more subjective if change is considered likely.

God is neither so it is a form of objectivism.

This is your assertion. Defining Yahweh as "good" and then saying "goodness is based on Yahweh" is offering a bare assertion followed to a pre-determined conclusion.

The circularity of such logic is dizzying. "Goodness is what Yahweh wills, so we know that Yahweh is good because Yahweh wills what Yahweh wills and so we know that what Yahweh wills is good because Yahweh is good and a good god who is composed only of goodness would only will good things so we know that what Yahweh wills is good and so we can define that goodness is what Yahweh wills..."

Also, your assertion isn't true by definition of the terms "objective" and "subjective". Objective matters are not decided on but discovered.

Not really sure what your point is though, even if it were a form of subjectivism, Christians have a subjective standard for morality (God) that cannot error, you guys have a subjective standard of morality (mankind) that is prone to error quite often. We still win.

This is completely beside the point. We are discussing whether or not Christian morality is objective. Additionally, this is incorrect. Yahweh's morality does in fact change, as demonstrated by the NT replacing the OT. Time was shellfish were an abomination. Now they are not.

You can say "fulfilled" rather than "changed" but this is just semantic tap dancing.

I don’t see the word slave anywhere in that commandment.

In the translation I offered, it did.

Additionally, since the commandment addresses coveting the PROPERTY of another person, that suggests slavery rather than willing and employed servant.

According to whom?

According to the slave and any who don't wish to be slaves, which would be pretty much everyone else in the world.

Given your various and often contradictory definitions of morality, slavery would not even be morally wrong, so I am not sure what your issue is here.

Actually, I've been consistent in my explanations of why slavery would be wrong but you're still struggling with more basic concepts like what distinguishes "objective" from "subjective" so I'm trying to go slow with you.

---

ADDITION TO ABOVE:
My wife thinks I'm wasting a lot of time trying to explain basic things to a total fucktard and my time would be better spent watching gay porn with her.
This is her subjective evaluation.

[Captain Scarlet]

Subjectivity becomes objectivity if the mind we are dealing with is perfect and infallible. God’s mind is such a mind because it is consistent with His character.

Yes and my point (which you have ignored) was that this being thought it was only important enough to have authored just once and then only 10 things in the bible. The creator of the entire universe wants to speak to us. Great what brilliant insights is he going to give us into humanity and the secrets of the universe:

“17(A) "You shall not covet your neighbor’s house;© you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey or anything that is your neighbor’s." Exodus 20:17 (ESV)
[/quote]
........really, can anyone be that credulous as to think a god would say that.

[Statler Waldorf]

You see, this is what is wrong with people like you... You don't think an act is wrong if you feel that it is, you let someone else decide.

Why exactly is letting someone else who is infallible decide over myself who is fallible what is wrong? So when Jeffery Dahmer decided it was not morally wrong to murder and devour his victims he had respect in your eyes than I do because he decided it for himself?

5. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.

Sounds like an infallible God’s commands to me.

"unbiased, not influenced by opinions, independent of thought" all preclude the answer coming exclusively from the evaluations, mandates and opinions of a single being, however wise or powerful that being may be. If morality is truly objective, it exists as part of reality which can be potentially discovered by any observer. Things objectively wrong would continue to be wrong regardless of whether Yahweh goes away to another universe, changes his mind or turns out never to have existed at all.

Nope, you are switching your definitions around either on purpose or because of ignorance. God’s decrees would only be subjective to Himself, but since they are apart from mankind, discernable by mankind, applicable to all mankind, and not whimsical, they are objectively true to mankind.

If you say "morality is objective and this singular being decides what that is" you have by the definition of 'objective' contradicted yourself. Objective is not a matter of decision by any being.

Again, you either didn’t read the definition or you are trying to be sneaky. Morality applies to mankind, it is decided by a perfect being outside of mankind who owns all of mankind; therefore it is objective from man’s perspective. Therefore, objective morality does exist because of God’s decrees.

1. belonging to, proceeding from, or relating to the mind of the thinking subject and not the nature of the object being considered.

See, its right there. Mankind is the subject, morality the object is not a result of man’s mind but rather the mind of God which is outside of the subject. It’s not subjective from man’s perspective at all.

Subjective evaluations are decided upon

God’s moral decrees are not decided upon by man.

Objective facts are discovered

God’s moral decrees are discovered by man through God’s revelation.

Clear?

Yes you helped clearly proof my point, thanks.

Let's suppose I never change my mind about how apples taste or that everyone agrees that throwing apples at people is a bad thing to do. These evaluations do not become less subjective merely by the introduction of the possibility or unlikelyhood of change. Neither do they become more subjective if change is considered likely.

Improper analogy, your analogy is only subjective because you are deciding the moral law for yourself, if God decided it for you it would cease to be subjective and become objective from your perspective.

This is your assertion. Defining Yahweh as "good" and then saying "goodness is based on Yahweh" is offering a bare assertion followed to a pre-determined conclusion.

Nope, it’s defining a term the way scripture defines it. If you claim that Yahweh is not good and then proceed to define goodness differently than Yahweh does you are committing equivocation.

The circularity of such logic is dizzying. "Goodness is what Yahweh wills, so we know that Yahweh is good because Yahweh wills what Yahweh wills and so we know that what Yahweh wills is good because Yahweh is good and a good god who is composed only of goodness would only will good things so we know that what Yahweh wills is good and so we can define that goodness is what Yahweh wills..."

Pretty lame straw man really. Yahweh is good because He is the very standard we measure goodness by, goodness is one of His attributes. “That meter stick can’t be a meter because to say it is a meter is being circular!” “No, it’s a meter because it is the actual standard we use to measure what a meter is” No circularity needed.

Also, your assertion isn't true by definition of the terms "objective" and "subjective". Objective matters are not decided on but discovered.

Well we already talked about how man does not decide morality but rather discovers it through God’s revelation, so we resolved that issue already.

This is completely beside the point. We are discussing whether or not Christian morality is objective. Additionally, this is incorrect. Yahweh's morality does in fact change, as demonstrated by the NT replacing the OT. Time was shellfish were an abomination. Now they are not.

It is objective from the perspective of the Christian. Jewish purity laws changed, but the concepts of morality that are based upon parts of God’s character do not change.

In the translation I offered, it did.

Well you cherry picked translations then to get what you wanted which is something I have seen you do more than once; I have always stuck to the ESV.

Additionally, since the commandment addresses coveting the PROPERTY of another person, that suggests slavery rather than willing and employed servant.

I never saw the word property in the verse, more so a person should not covet the life their neighbor has.

According to the slave and any who don't wish to be slaves, which would be pretty much everyone else in the world.

So morality is decided by majority opinion?

Actually, I've been consistent in my explanations of why slavery would be wrong but you're still struggling with more basic concepts like what distinguishes "objective" from "subjective" so I'm trying to go slow with you.

Actually I corrected you on subjectivity vs. objectivity; you are welcome by the way. Also, according to your very own appeal to majority rule you made above, back when the majority of people felt slavery was not morally wrong it would not have been…according to you that is of course.

My wife thinks I'm wasting a lot of time trying to explain basic things to a total fucktard and my time would be better spent watching gay porn with her.
This is her subjective evaluation.

If your wife wants to join the conversation and get run through just like you always do he is more than welcome to do so.

[Epimethean]

There. Is. Zero. Evidence. For. This. Supposed. Infallibility.

[Statler Waldorf]

There. Is. Zero. Evidence. For. This. Supposed. Infallibility.

Trying to prove something is infallible with fallible methods? Nice.

[Epimethean]

Why do you do it every post then, Stat?

[DeistPaladin]

Sounds like an infallible God’s commands to me.

Circular reasoning. "We know that Yahweh is infallible because he's infallible"
-Take a drink

Morality applies to mankind, it is decided by a perfect being outside of mankind who owns all of mankind; therefore it is objective from man’s perspective. Therefore, objective morality does exist because of God’s decrees.

I must have missed the part of the definitions that say subjective can be objective from another point of view.
-Not one of the standard fallacious apologetic arguments but I'll take a drink anyway.

Nope, it’s defining a term the way scripture defines it.

"It's true because the Bible says so."
-Take a drink

Pretty lame straw man really. Yahweh is good because He is the very standard we measure goodness by, goodness is one of His attributes.

Funny, I think that's exactly what I said. "You know that Yahweh is good because he's good and so we know that we can measure goodness by Yahweh because Yahweh is good."
-I'll just help myself to another drink...

“That meter stick can’t be a meter because to say it is a meter is being circular!” “No, it’s a meter because it is the actual standard we use to measure what a meter is” No circularity needed.

Actually, the meter stick is a meter long because the manufacturer made it so. If we are in doubt, say by mistake at the manufacturing plant, then we'd need to independently verify the length.

Well we already talked about how man does not decide morality but rather discovers it through God’s revelation, so we resolved that issue already.

God is still a being. A being, no matter how powerful, can't make up arbitrary rules and declare them "objective".

It is objective from the perspective of the Christian. Jewish purity laws changed, but the concepts of morality that are based upon parts of God’s character do not change.

"That's the OT. It doesn't count."
-Take a drink

I never saw the word property in the verse, more so a person should not covet the life their neighbor has.

Abuse of the ad hoc hypothesis to protect a cherished a prior belief from being disproved.
-Take a drink

So morality is decided by majority opinion?

Argumentum ad neusem. Apologist ignores every point that was made to disprove their argument and simply starts over again.
-Chug

Also, according to your very own appeal to majority rule you made above, back when the majority of people felt slavery was not morally wrong it would not have been…according to you that is of course.

Straw man
-Take a drink

If your wife wants to join the conversation and get run through just like you always do he is more than welcome to do so.

She doesn't have my patience for dealing with the willfully ignorant. Sorry.