07 Nov 05
Originally posted by LemonJelloAre you suggesting that objective morals cannot exist in the absence of His Greatness and Excellency, God Almighty?
[b]I first want you to make an ironclad defence for objective morals in an atheistic world
It would be difficult to be any more objective than a priori principles and pure reason when approaching a discussion concerning the Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals.
Are you suggesting that objective morals cannot exist in the absence of His Greatness and Excellency, God Almighty?[/b]
You tell me... Sorry about the dodge ball - I'm turning in for the night.
07 Nov 05
Originally posted by Halitosewhatever a good god commands will always be good.
My resolution of the DCT is essentially the same as Thomas Aquinas's: God commands something because it is good, but the reason it is good is that good is an essential part of God's nature. So goodness is grounded in God's character and merely expressed in His commands. Therefore whatever a good god commands will always be good. Its a marriage between th ...[text shortened]... ee that the atheist has no basis for objective morals, or will I still be getting your response?
Okay, then allow me to take this as Premise 1:
1. Whatever a good god commands will always be good.
2. The God of the Bible commanded human sacrifice (Genesis 22:2).
3. The God of the Bible is a good god.
4. Therefore, human sacrifice will always be good.
As far as I can tell, the above argument is logically valid. So, if you want to reject 4, then your apparent options are: you may deny 2 based on the grounds that the Biblical account is false; otherwise, you may reject 3 based on the grounds that the God of the Bible is not always good, which would imply that goodness is not essential to His nature.
So which is it Halitose? Which door suits your fancy?
Door A: Human Sacrifice is always good.
Door B: The Bible is false.
Door C: Goodness is not essential to your God's nature.
07 Nov 05
Originally posted by LemonJelloA command has not just a person commanding, but also a person commanded and a situation where the command holds. A captain commanding his troops to "Charge!" in a battle does not expect his command to be carried out by civilians, nor his troops in peace time.
[b]whatever a good god commands will always be good.
Okay, then allow me to take this as Premise 1:
1. Whatever a good god commands will always be good.
2. The God of the Bible commanded human sacrifice (Genesis 22:2).
3. The God of the Bible is a good god.
4. Therefore, human sacrifice will always be good.
As far as I can tell, the ab ...[text shortened]... ays good.
Door B: The Bible is false.
Door C: Goodness is not essential to your God's nature.[/b]
07 Nov 05
2 edits
Originally posted by LemonJelloWhy do you say this is true?
[b]whatever a good god commands will always be good.
Okay, then allow me to take this as Premise 1:
1. Whatever a good god commands will always be good.
2. The God of the Bible commanded human sacrifice (Genesis 22:2).
3. The God of the Bible is a good god.
4. Therefore, human sacrifice will always be good.
As far as I can tell, the ab ...[text shortened]... ays good.
Door B: The Bible is false.
Door C: Goodness is not essential to your God's nature.[/b]
1. Whatever a good god commands will always be good.
I can think of reasons this is not true, the most important being that
things change, and if God commands something under one set of
circumstances, as the conditions change, the command would no
longer be appropriate or applicable.
Kelly
07 Nov 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerThat really doesn't matter when it comes to forming a basis for rejecting Halitose's concept of Divine Command.
A command has not just a person commanding, but also a person commanded and a situation where the command holds. A captain commanding his troops to "Charge!" in a battle does not expect his command to be carried out by civilians, nor his troops in peace time.
Halitose states that because God is essentially good, anything He commands must be good. Now if we add to that what you are saying, then we stipulate further that anything God commands must be good in the situation and context in which the command is dictated. OK, then Halitose is committed to the conclusion that in the situation of Abraham and Isaac, it would have been good for Abraham to perform human sacrifice.
More generally, Halitose is committed not only to the conclusion that in certain instances, God deems human sacrifice to be good; but further that in certain instances, human sacrifice is good.
07 Nov 05
Originally posted by KellyJayThose are Halitose's words. (see a few posts back).
Why do you say this is true?
1. Whatever a good god commands will always be good.
I can think of reasons this is not true, the most important being that
things change, and if God commands something under one set of
circumstances, as the conditions change, the command would no
longer be appropriate or applicable.
Kelly
So, KJ, do you think that human sacrifice was good in Abraham's time, but now it is a bit out of style?
08 Nov 05
Originally posted by LemonJelloThe event you referenced was a test, that God did not require or
Those are Halitose's words. (see a few posts back).
So, KJ, do you think that human sacrifice was good in Abraham's time, but now it is a bit out of style?
desire in my opinion a human sacrifice, yet Jesus gave his life
for us to take it up again. One was all that was required, the perfect
one.
Kelly
08 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by RatXAbsolutely classic.
[b]I fail to see why god's being known to us should follow from us asking him for something. Again, why should it be that, knowing everything, god cannot make himself known without prayer?
I could spend a lot of time and type on this, but as I said, prayer isn't about asking, but communicating. Getting to know God. You get to know God by how he answer ...[text shortened]...
As far as I'm concerned, the half-bakedness is pandemic.
There I agree with you...[/b]
PRatX gives the very same list as his like minded (using the term loosely) friend, Halitosis.
Well, great minds think alike!
Or in their case, "Fools seldom differ" is more applicable.
So come on boys, where did you cut 'n' paste this risible list from?
Should have known Halitosis would not have been able to produce such an esteemed list on his own! (or indeed ever have an original thought).
BTW - I am creating a new thread to analyse this list and tear it apart.
Funny.......oh so funny!!!!! 😀😵😀
08 Nov 05
Originally posted by howardgeeWell, well, well. The unsubstantiating-pathetic-ad-hominem-with-sweeping-statements king actualy going to step up with meaningful discussion? I'm looking forward to this new thread of yours. I'm guessing though, that it will only be a smear campaign on some carefully selected individuals from my list. Perhaps as a start to this new thread you will define "good" in your own atheistic terms, so we will know what you mean when you say: "This pathetic scumb@g did no "good" to society."
Absolutely classic.
PRatX gives the very same list as his like minded (using the term loosely) friend, Halitosis.
Well, great minds think alike!
Or in their case, "Fools seldom differ" is more applicable.
So come on boys, where did you cut 'n' paste this risible list from?
Should have known Halitosis would not have been able to produce such ...[text shortened]... a new thread to analyse this list and tear it apart.
Funny.......oh so funny!!!!! 😀😵😀
Btw, I didn't c&p that list from anywhere; I sucked it out of my thumb, like the rest of this post.
08 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloI reject premise 1.1.
[b]whatever a good god commands will always be good.
Okay, then allow me to take this as Premise 1:
1. Whatever a good god commands will always be good.
2. The God of the Bible commanded human sacrifice (Genesis 22:2).
3. The God of the Bible is a good god.
4. Therefore, human sacrifice will always be good.
As far as I can tell, the ab ...[text shortened]... ays good.
Door B: The Bible is false.
Door C: Goodness is not essential to your God's nature.[/b]
Gen 22:1 And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham...
This was merely a test of Abraham's obedience, by commanding him to do something morally detestable.
Gen 22:12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.
God was going to prevent him from carrying through with his act.
