POI wrote: ↑Fri Mar 01, 2024 10:44 am
The second video explains why. The theist's reason for using the OMV argument is to demonstrate the existence of a God. You cannot insert God into the argument to prove God in the same argument. That's circular.
POI The theist's position, (you), is to assert that you cannot have OMV's without God. My counter is presented in the 2nd video.
No, the moral argument doesn't assume
does God exists, but it assumes God
could exist. And since there is no viable alternative explanation other than God, therefore God is the best explanation for OMV.
The 1st video addresses the 2 horns in the perceived 'false dilemma'. Frank T. offers a 3rd horn? But to prove this, you not only need to demonstrate God's existence, but then explain why this conclusion is sound, outside of 'might makes right.' And you have failed. I have explained why.
As I've mentioned, I've offered many other arguments for God's existence in the
cosmology topic.
I'll let readers assess who has failed.
Further, regardless of if one is able or not, to demonstrate OMV's, does not change the conclusion that the theist's reasoning for using the "moral argument" to prove God completely fails regardless of if morals are objective or not. Thus, please stop using the "moral argument" in an attempt to prove a God.
Don't see how it fails so the moral argument is still valid and will continue to be used.
POI The theist's version of the OMV argument, to prove God's existence, is circular. The 2nd video explains why.
Exactly what does the 2nd video state that I haven't already addressed?
(U) Cumulatively, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of God existing than not existing.
POI Therefore, the agnostic/atheist/other is:
a) uninformed
b) inept
c) in denial
d) other
Meaning, the theists have won. At this point, it's as futile as debating the shape of the earth with a flat earther. In this scenario, the doubter is the 'flat earther.' Is this how settled the topic is about God's existence? If I am as informed of the presented arguments as you are, I am options <b) thru d)>?
Who's claiming points a-d?
There's two claims: God exists or God does not exist. If you claim God does not exist, then we can have a debate on that topic after the conclusion on ethics. Then we can see which side is comparable to the flat earther position.
POI I'm not here to argue the ethics. I'm instead pointing out its lack in logic. Meaning, without completely changing the definition of the term 'love', some of God's given pronouncements do not look to be objectively compatible? This is not a "moral" observation, but instead a logical one. In part, this skeptic doubts the Bible because it lacks logic.
As I've been arguing with alexxcJRO, I dispute this claim. It is not merely based on logic, but at the foundation the skeptics are making ethical and moral judgments on the Bible and God. This is even revealed in your charge of love being redefined. The implication is you believe God acts in ways that is not loving. This is a moral judgment.
(U) As for "might makes right", we've covered this multiple times. It is not "might" that makes it right, but authority.
POI Then again, it's still the same old argument. Can I stop him? No. Why is God THE authority and why should anyone care?
What same old argument are you referring to? That nobody can stop him? How is that relevant?
The entire point is God is the only viable basis for OMV. Why should anyone care? Because we're debating ethics and morals and we're arguing for what is the truth.
POI You've missed my point. But you unknowingly completely demonstrated my point. If God says it, it becomes so. Gay sex is an abomination because it is in HIS nature to think so. No one has the power to stop him in enforcing his opinion/nature/conclusion. His nature is the only one which matters. This is 'might makes right.'
And as I've mentioned before, I agree "authority makes right". With "might makes right", that is not necessarily so.