Dániel Boros Posted July 21, 2012 Report Share Posted July 21, 2012 Please refute this argument for me. Make the best argument you can. Something equally rhetorical as Craig's. Something more than merely pointing out his falacies. thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dream_weaver Posted July 21, 2012 Report Share Posted July 21, 2012 Please refute this argument for me. Make the best argument you can. Something equally rhetorical as Craig's. Something more than merely pointing out his falacies. thanks Since you already recognize his rhetoric contains fallacies, it would appear that you have already refuted it for yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dániel Boros Posted July 21, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 21, 2012 I am not confident in my argument. I am curious how you would debunk this theory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oso Posted July 21, 2012 Report Share Posted July 21, 2012 (edited) Define objective and define morality. That should be a good start. Also, the entire basis for his "objective" morality is feeling. Feeling that rape is wrong and feeling that self-sacrifice is good. Feeling is not a legitimate source of knowledge and reason can be used to show why rape is objectively wrong without god and how self-sacrifice is wrong despite his feelings. Edited July 21, 2012 by oso Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairnet Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 Why does morality have to be any deeper than survival and evolution (biology) in order to be "objective"? Its clear that the reason we have values, principles, and sentiments is because it helps us survive as individuals and then as a race. Without values we would be sub-animals that survived on reflexes alone. Without principles and sentiments we would be worse off than most primates. Also, what about God's existence makes rape wrong? Such a being clearly allows it correct? Is it his disaproval? Or the threat of eternal torture? With this standard the only thing we need to make rape wrong is a government powerful enough to catch rapists and torture them for eternity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dream_weaver Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 With this standard the only thing we need to make rape wrong is a government powerful enough to catch rapists and torture them for eternity. And if they should die before eternity is up, then what? Justice wasn't served? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dream_weaver Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 I am not confident in my argument. I am curious how you would debunk this theory. Is it necessary to debunk that 2+2≠1, 2+2≠2, 2+2≠3, 2+2≠5, 2+2≠6 etc learn that 2+2=4? If you want to be confident in your arguments, identify the principles that make for sound argument. Thrash out something simple like "There are no absolutes." Recognize that "There are no absolutes." is posited as an absolute. When you realize that "There are no absolutes." is false, you can embrace the fact that "There are absolutes." Once you identify what 'absolutes', 'certainty', 'truth' are, it's like understanding 2+2=4. Any other answer is false, because you know what the answer is. This is really oversimplified. As the issues become more complex, the number of interrelated issues increase, and while error is possible at any step along the way, learning how to identify error goes a long way to developing your confidence of knowing what you know, by knowing how you know it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicky Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 (edited) Is it necessary to debunk that 2+2≠1, 2+2≠2, 2+2≠3, 2+2≠5, 2+2≠6 etc learn that 2+2=4? Yes. Only to kids in elementary school, but yes, absolutely. Edited July 22, 2012 by Nicky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairnet Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 And if they should die before eternity is up, then what? Justice wasn't served? Do you even try to read posts? That was my point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dream_weaver Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 Do you even try to read posts? That was my point. I don't think I would have said what I did had I not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairnet Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 (edited) I don't think I would have said what I did had I not. That is so cool. God thinks people desrver to burn in hell forever for certain actions, and he has the power to make it happen. Eternal pain and suffering. That is the only thing under Christanity that makes their morals any more meaninful than subjective preference. So in principle, absolute power is what makes their system, not something being "Objectively Good". So by their standard, if a government had the power to torture someone for eternity, or at least indefinitley, their morals would be just as valid as God's. Edited July 24, 2012 by Hairnet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.