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 
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.
I am not confident in my argument.
I am curious how you would debunk this theory.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.