Christianity

[Martin Peter Clarke]

...there might be a god? Whodda thunk?

There certainly isn't as it would easily have communicated with us...

Well, all you can rule out is a god that that has communicated with us unambiguously. That leaves the door open to all sorts of inscrutable or indifferent gods.

I don't do lesser gods. Only the best case would do. Pity.

[MikeNovack]

1. Where is she forbidden bestiality?

Leviticus 18, It's in the list of forbidden sexual relations. That's why I referred to God's laws being true without reference to time (as opposed to being untrue until revealed by god and then suddenly becoming true -- we might not be held responsible until revealed but that would be part of the discussion. of Eve's choices.

But Immanuel, you are mistaken thinking I have switched to a religious perspective. Justthat it is clear no point arguing with you in secular terms. I am addressing YOUR argument in YOUR terms. You are saying morality comes just from god and is inaccessible to man ecept by gods commands. But you claim what is in the Bible is true, yes?

Your "morality comes from god" is OK but your "is inaccessible to man" is not. Genesis 2 and 3 refute that part of it. God created that tree of knowledge and put it in the Garden. It says Eve and Adam did eat of it, and immediately had moral knowledge (they recognized that they were naked and that this was wrong). Genesis 3:22 has god saying that man now has knowledge of good and evil (has moral sense)

[Will Bouwman]

I don't do lesser gods. Only the best case would do. Pity.

Really? What would a best case god be like?

[Martin Peter Clarke]

1. Where is she forbidden bestiality?

Leviticus 18, It's in the list of forbidden sexual relations. That's why I referred to God's laws being true without reference to time (as opposed to being untrue until revealed by god and then suddenly becoming true -- we might not be held responsible until revealed but that would be part of the discussion. of Eve's choices.

But Immanuel, you are mistaken thinking I have switched to a religious perspective. Justthat it is clear no point arguing with you in secular terms. I am addressing YOUR argument in YOUR terms. You are saying morality comes just from god and is inaccessible to man ecept by gods commands. But you claim what is in the Bible is true, yes?

Your "morality comes from god" is OK but your "is inaccessible to man" is not. Genesis 2 and 3 refute that part of it. God created that tree of knowledge and put it in the Garden. It says Eve and Adam did eat of it, and immediately had moral knowledge (they recognized that they were naked and that this was wrong). Genesis 3:22 has god saying that man now has knowledge of good and evil (has moral sense)

Riiiiiight.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

I don't do lesser gods. Only the best case would do. Pity.

Really? What would a best case god be like?

As above. They would be competent, obvious Love.

[Immanuel Can]

But Immanuel, you are mistaken thinking I have switched to a religious perspective.

No, rather I just made you a concession: that we don’t have to debate whether or not you believe it. We could just talk about what the narrative means.

Just that it is clear no point arguing with you in secular terms.

So far, my argument has been entirely on Secular terms. All I’ve said is that Secularism has no moral information to offer. Gary has realized it’s true. And I think you can see it’s true, too…without having to accept even one religious postulate.

I am addressing YOUR argument in YOUR terms.

I was trying to give you the same courtesy.

Your "morality comes from god" is OK but your "is inaccessible to man" is not.

No, that’s not what I said. Morality is not normally “inaccessible to man.” But all men have instinctive knowledge of God, so moral awareness is always there in natural cognition. But there’s nothing natural about Secularism. It’s an artificial imposition on the cognition of mankind. Moral knowledge, then, is only inaccessible to Secular man. Not to men in general. All men have a knowledge of morality, a conscience which was put in them by their Creator. Romans 1 says as much.

But Secular man denies that this is so, or even that it’s possible. He will not access normal cognition anymore; he resists it. (See also, Romans 1) And having declared himself to be nothing but secular, and having rejected the knowledge of God which is inherent in him, he’s cut himself off from anything which might explain the presence of that conscience in him, or let him believe it has objective truth to offer him.

Genesis 2 and 3 refute that part of it.

Well, since I didn’t say that, it doesn’t refute anything that matters here, of course. I have always accepted the veracity of Genesis on this, and there’s no contradiction.

Genesis 3:22 has god saying that man now has knowledge of good and evil (has moral sense)

Now you’ve got it. But man is also now fallen and alienated from God. He knows, for the first time, what good and evil really are; but he’s chosen evil. And consequently, as Romans says, he’s warped his moral awareness as well.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Morality is not normally “inaccessible to man.” But all men have instinctive knowledge of God, so moral awareness is always there in natural cognition. But there’s nothing natural about Secularism. It’s an artificial imposition on the cognition of mankind. Moral knowledge, then, is only inaccessible to Secular man. Not to men in general. All men have a knowledge of morality, a conscience which was put in them by their Creator. Romans 1 says as much.

Natural man has an inborn sense of moral law.

Secular man has received, or been indoctrinated into perverse, distorting ideas that inhibit or block his awareness (intuition) of these moral laws and truths.

The initiate, specifically the Christian initiate however, accepts the Commandments as being not merely “naturally accessible” on some intuited level (as the natural man does) but assents to their necessity and universal supremacy.

Secular man, in your system, cannot be else but an committed atheist, right? In your view, his distorting view arises in his denial to “believe in” the God of the Hebrews who revealed the Commandments.

Those of other religions, which do “believe in God” are (to put it colorfully) supercharged natural men insofar as their natural perception abilities are increased (to some degree) …

… but the do not have access to the full moral commandment range, right?

[Immanuel Can]

Morality is not normally “inaccessible to man.” But all men have instinctive knowledge of God, so moral awareness is always there in natural cognition. But there’s nothing natural about Secularism. It’s an artificial imposition on the cognition of mankind. Moral knowledge, then, is only inaccessible to Secular man. Not to men in general. All men have a knowledge of morality, a conscience which was put in them by their Creator. Romans 1 says as much.

Natural man has an inborn sense of moral law.

Secular man has received, or been indoctrinated into perverse, distorting ideas that inhibit or block his awareness (intuition) of these moral laws and truths.

Yep. And he’s also cut himself off from God, so he can’t even make sense of why there has to BE any such thing as morality. He’s become a subjectivist — cultivating the delusion that whatever he happens to want is moral, and that he’s entitled to determine what is moral. He will not be ruled by any objective truth. He prefers to think he generates his own reality, in that respect.

So it’s not coincidental that Secularists are subjectivists. It’s two things: one, a deduction from secular ontological beliefs he holds, and two, it serves his natural inclinations very well to believe he’s always right about what’s moral.

The irony of that, of course, is that like any word, if it refers to everything, then it refers to nothing. If everything is moral, then nothing is: the whole concept “moral” fails to single out anything in a way that makes it distinct from anything else, and he adjective becomes utterly useless. But that is the state Secular man has chosen for himself, and defends with visceral enthusiasm.

Secular man, in your system, cannot be else but an committed atheist, right?

It would seem so. For how could one say, “I’m a secular person, but I believe in God?” Does the utterance even make sense to you?

Those of other religions, which do “believe in God” are (to put it colorfully) supercharged natural men insofar as their natural perception abilities are increased (to some degree) …

… but the do not have access to the full moral commandment range, right?

Well, that’s a big topic. Sure you want to go there?

Okay. Any religion that holds to some singular, personal “God” concept is bound to have some structure they regard as moral. But then, so is any ideological belief. Take Marxism, for example: it has its own account of original sin (“alienation,” “class struggle” or “oppression” or “inequity” or “social injustice”). It has its own story of the Fall (the myth of an original social contract that was propertyless and unoppressive, and how wicked “capitalists” or “exploiters” or “oppressors” inexplicably overthrew that original state). It has its own story of redemption — how, through “class consciousness,” or “the People’s standpoint” or “Critical Praxis,” or whatever, people were enlightened as to their state, created revolution and freed themselves. And then, it offers those who convert to its ideology their own heaven, but on earth — “the just society,” “true democracy,” “the end of history,” “utopia,” “the triumph of the proletariat…” And within the Marxist system, there are sins specified, as well — oppression, inequity, racism, failure to embrace ‘diversity’, immigration laws, owning property, being reactionary, refusing to cooperate with Marxism, individualism, capitalism, making profit, speaking against the Party…along with a secular Hell to send people to: the jail, the torture chamber, the gulag and the executioner’s row.

But Secularism doesn’t do any of that. It has no opinions about God, man’s condition, sins, salvation, Heaven or Hell. It just consists in refusing to believe any of that. But in so doing, it strip-mines the possibility of any values or meaning in life. So Secular man almost always finds it necessary to embrace a supplementary ideology to fill the void Secularism creates — and this can be anything from Solipsism to Socialism to Satanism. Whatever it is, it will likely be embraced enthusiastically, though, and treated as the salvation of Secularism from the dread of anomie.

Sorry you asked, yet?

[Gary Childress]

Yep.

Understanding who God is, that He is both the Creator and thus the logical determiner of all teleology, and that there isn’t even another plausible candidate for that role, it becomes almost unnecessary to add the middle premise. But we’ll do it.

Premise 2: “The nature and expressed will of God are contrary to the act of theft."

That's not a valid or sound argument. It amounts to:

1. G exists.
2. The nature and expressed will of God are contrary to the act of theft.
Conclusion: Therefore, stealing is wrong.

No, that’s an incorrect summary.

It IS valid if you realize what the word “God” refers to. That’s why I put that explanation at the start. It would not be a valid argument in regard to, say, Zeus…because Zeus is reputed to be a created being, not the Creator. It would not work in regard to a Deist god, because the Deists claim that their creator has no further wishes or intentions or teleology for its creation. But it would be valid if God is the God of the Jews and Christians. Because that “God” means, “Comprehensive Creator and Supreme Being, who has teleological purposes for his Creation.”

And so:
1. G exists as the Comprehensive Creator and Supreme Being, who has teleological purposes for his Creation.
2. The nature and expressed will of God (and His teleological purposes indicated thereby) are contrary to the act of theft.
Conclusion: Therefore, stealing is wrong (i.e. contrary to the Divine intentions for our teleology).

Also, why is it evident that stealing is wrong?

Well, one can only say that if one knows what one means specifically by “stealing.” If one redefines it to include things like “borrowing temporarily” or “taking with permission,”or even “taking under extraordinary circumstances,” such as borrowing a car to save a life, then it voids the principle of the meaning it actually implies. One has to limit it to “taking without warrant that which God has allowed to be the legitimate property of another.” And if one limits it in that way, it’s a clear principle.

And in the clear, it’s not hard at all. Don’t just take my stuff. I can’t take yours. That’s pretty straightforward.

Applications are more complicated than general principles. But without clear general principles, one has no idea at all of what to make of applications. One doesn’t even have a reliable sense of direction. One is left with one’s mere intuition, grounded in…nothing.

That's certainly plausible. However, you've packed in a lot of assumptions into your 2 premises. Once again, allowing that there is a God, for the sake of argument only, one could look at the world and decide that God is indifferent to his creations. Like a divine zookeeper, he makes the world with all sorts of creatures and lets them fight it out for his amusement. It may NOT be fair to say that stealing is self-evidently wrong to God. Perhaps God has given some people alternative means of providing for themselves.

The argument below is deductive and valid independently of there being a God. Of course, it may arguably not be sound (just as yours arguably may not be sound). Let me know what you disagree with.

P1. If moral truths are grounded in facts about well-being and flourishing, then moral truths are objective.
(If M = G, then M = O)

P2. Moral truths are grounded in facts about well-being and flourishing
(M = G)

C1. Therefore, moral truths are objective
(M = O) [Modus Ponens: P1 and P2]

P3. If moral truths are grounded in facts about well-being and flourishing, then moral truths do not require theistic backing to be objective.
(If M = G, then not the case T)

C2. Moral truths do not require theistic backing to be objective.
(Not the case T) [Modus Ponens: P2 and P3]

[Immanuel Can]

That's not a valid or sound argument. It amounts to:

1. G exists.
2. The nature and expressed will of God are contrary to the act of theft.
Conclusion: Therefore, stealing is wrong.

No, that’s an incorrect summary.

It IS valid if you realize what the word “God” refers to. That’s why I put that explanation at the start. It would not be a valid argument in regard to, say, Zeus…because Zeus is reputed to be a created being, not the Creator. It would not work in regard to a Deist god, because the Deists claim that their creator has no further wishes or intentions or teleology for its creation. But it would be valid if God is the God of the Jews and Christians. Because that “God” means, “Comprehensive Creator and Supreme Being, who has teleological purposes for his Creation.”

And so:
1. G exists as the Comprehensive Creator and Supreme Being, who has teleological purposes for his Creation.
2. The nature and expressed will of God (and His teleological purposes indicated thereby) are contrary to the act of theft.
Conclusion: Therefore, stealing is wrong (i.e. contrary to the Divine intentions for our teleology).

Also, why is it evident that stealing is wrong?

Well, one can only say that if one knows what one means specifically by “stealing.” If one redefines it to include things like “borrowing temporarily” or “taking with permission,”or even “taking under extraordinary circumstances,” such as borrowing a car to save a life, then it voids the principle of the meaning it actually implies. One has to limit it to “taking without warrant that which God has allowed to be the legitimate property of another.” And if one limits it in that way, it’s a clear principle.

And in the clear, it’s not hard at all. Don’t just take my stuff. I can’t take yours. That’s pretty straightforward.

Applications are more complicated than general principles. But without clear general principles, one has no idea at all of what to make of applications. One doesn’t even have a reliable sense of direction. One is left with one’s mere intuition, grounded in…nothing.

That's certainly plausible.

Not just plausible. It’s also logically valid and sound.

However, you've packed in a lot of assumptions into your 2 premises.

I’ve really used definitions, rather than assumptions.

Once again, allowing that there is a God, for the sake of argument only, one could look at the world and decide that God is indifferent to his creations.

That would be Deism. I’ve already suggested that has its own problems, but shares with Secularism the inability to ground an ethics. If God has no teleological intention in Creation, then nothing can be said to be right or wrong for that created being to do.

The argument below is deductive and valid independently of there being a God. Of course, it may arguably not be sound (just as yours arguably may not be sound). Let me know what you disagree with.

P1. If moral truths are grounded in facts about well-being and flourishing, then moral truths are objective.
(If M = G, then M = O)

Well, I’m much in favour of us using logic to do this work, and I commend you on the attempt. It’s the right thing to try to do, even if the results in this case are immediately problematic.

Problem: what is “flourishing” and why is it morally obligatory? You see, in your first principle, you’ve already arbitrarily reinserted objectivism. But the existence of an objective morality is what you’re supposed to be proving, or arguing for not merely taking as assumed. And you’ve started with “if” (a hypothetical) which is an admission of not being certain of the facticity of the claim.

P2. Moral truths are grounded in facts about well-being and flourishing
(M = G)

C1. Therefore, moral truths are objective
(M = O) [Modus Ponens: P1 and P2]

These just restate the assumption buried in the first premise. They aren’t actually necessary: they’re redundant.

P3. If moral truths are grounded in facts about well-being and flourishing, then moral truths do not require theistic backing to be objective.
(If M = G, then not the case T)

You’ve still left this at the level of a hypothetical (an “if”). But you need it to be a “since,” a proven fact.

C2. Moral truths do not require theistic backing to be objective.

This would assume the truth of your assumption. But it’s by no means evident that your assumption that there is some specified association between “flourishing” (whatever that is supposed to mean) and a moral duty. And yet it has proved impossible already to propose even one such case.

So basically, the problem is the very basic fallacy of assuming one’s conclusion, rather than proving or arguing for it. We might add that a hypothetical syllogism always requires a second premise confirming the facticity or “since-ness” of the proposition stated as an “if” in the first premise, and there isn’t such a thing here.

Not valid, and not sound, therefore.

[Gary Childress]

No, that’s an incorrect summary.

It IS valid if you realize what the word “God” refers to. That’s why I put that explanation at the start. It would not be a valid argument in regard to, say, Zeus…because Zeus is reputed to be a created being, not the Creator. It would not work in regard to a Deist god, because the Deists claim that their creator has no further wishes or intentions or teleology for its creation. But it would be valid if God is the God of the Jews and Christians. Because that “God” means, “Comprehensive Creator and Supreme Being, who has teleological purposes for his Creation.”

And so:
1. G exists as the Comprehensive Creator and Supreme Being, who has teleological purposes for his Creation.
2. The nature and expressed will of God (and His teleological purposes indicated thereby) are contrary to the act of theft.
Conclusion: Therefore, stealing is wrong (i.e. contrary to the Divine intentions for our teleology).


Well, one can only say that if one knows what one means specifically by “stealing.” If one redefines it to include things like “borrowing temporarily” or “taking with permission,”or even “taking under extraordinary circumstances,” such as borrowing a car to save a life, then it voids the principle of the meaning it actually implies. One has to limit it to “taking without warrant that which God has allowed to be the legitimate property of another.” And if one limits it in that way, it’s a clear principle.

And in the clear, it’s not hard at all. Don’t just take my stuff. I can’t take yours. That’s pretty straightforward.

Applications are more complicated than general principles. But without clear general principles, one has no idea at all of what to make of applications. One doesn’t even have a reliable sense of direction. One is left with one’s mere intuition, grounded in…nothing.

That's certainly plausible.

Not just plausible. It’s also logically valid and sound.

However, you've packed in a lot of assumptions into your 2 premises.

I’ve really used definitions, rather than assumptions.

Once again, allowing that there is a God, for the sake of argument only, one could look at the world and decide that God is indifferent to his creations.

That would be Deism. I’ve already suggested that has its own problems, but shares with Secularism the inability to ground an ethics. If God has no teleological intention in Creation, then nothing can be said to be right or wrong for that created being to do.

The argument below is deductive and valid independently of there being a God. Of course, it may arguably not be sound (just as yours arguably may not be sound). Let me know what you disagree with.

P1. If moral truths are grounded in facts about well-being and flourishing, then moral truths are objective.
(If M = G, then M = O)

Well, I’m much in favour of us using logic to do this work, and I commend you on the attempt. It’s the right thing to try to do, even if the results in this case are immediately problematic.

Problem: what is “flourishing” and why is it morally obligatory? You see, in your first principle, you’ve already arbitrarily reinserted objectivism. But the existence of an objective morality is what you’re supposed to be proving, or arguing for not merely taking as assumed. And you’ve started with “if” (a hypothetical) which is an admission of not being certain of the facticity of the claim.

P2. Moral truths are grounded in facts about well-being and flourishing
(M = G)

C1. Therefore, moral truths are objective
(M = O) [Modus Ponens: P1 and P2]

These just restate the assumption buried in the first premise. They aren’t actually necessary: they’re redundant.

P3. If moral truths are grounded in facts about well-being and flourishing, then moral truths do not require theistic backing to be objective.
(If M = G, then not the case T)

You’ve still left this at the level of a hypothetical (an “if”). But you need it to be a “since,” a proven fact.

C2. Moral truths do not require theistic backing to be objective.

This would assume the truth of your assumption. But it’s by no means evident that your assumption that there is some specified association between “flourishing” (whatever that is supposed to mean) and a moral duty. And yet it has proved impossible already to propose even one such case.

So basically, the problem is the very basic fallacy of assuming one’s conclusion, rather than proving or arguing for it. We might add that a hypothetical syllogism always requires a second premise confirming the facticity or “since-ness” of the proposition stated as an “if” in the first premise, and there isn’t such a thing here.

Not valid, and not sound, therefore.

It's a valid deductive argument. You can disagree with the premises if you want, but I can disagree with yours, too. Fair enough?

[Immanuel Can]

That's certainly plausible.

Not just plausible. It’s also logically valid and sound.

However, you've packed in a lot of assumptions into your 2 premises.

I’ve really used definitions, rather than assumptions.

Once again, allowing that there is a God, for the sake of argument only, one could look at the world and decide that God is indifferent to his creations.

That would be Deism. I’ve already suggested that has its own problems, but shares with Secularism the inability to ground an ethics. If God has no teleological intention in Creation, then nothing can be said to be right or wrong for that created being to do.

The argument below is deductive and valid independently of there being a God. Of course, it may arguably not be sound (just as yours arguably may not be sound). Let me know what you disagree with.

P1. If moral truths are grounded in facts about well-being and flourishing, then moral truths are objective.
(If M = G, then M = O)

Well, I’m much in favour of us using logic to do this work, and I commend you on the attempt. It’s the right thing to try to do, even if the results in this case are immediately problematic.

Problem: what is “flourishing” and why is it morally obligatory? You see, in your first principle, you’ve already arbitrarily reinserted objectivism. But the existence of an objective morality is what you’re supposed to be proving, or arguing for not merely taking as assumed. And you’ve started with “if” (a hypothetical) which is an admission of not being certain of the facticity of the claim.

C1. Therefore, moral truths are objective
(M = O) [Modus Ponens: P1 and P2]

These just restate the assumption buried in the first premise. They aren’t actually necessary: they’re redundant.

P3. If moral truths are grounded in facts about well-being and flourishing, then moral truths do not require theistic backing to be objective.
(If M = G, then not the case T)

You’ve still left this at the level of a hypothetical (an “if”). But you need it to be a “since,” a proven fact.

C2. Moral truths do not require theistic backing to be objective.

This would assume the truth of your assumption. But it’s by no means evident that your assumption that there is some specified association between “flourishing” (whatever that is supposed to mean) and a moral duty. And yet it has proved impossible already to propose even one such case.

So basically, the problem is the very basic fallacy of assuming one’s conclusion, rather than proving or arguing for it. We might add that a hypothetical syllogism always requires a second premise confirming the facticity or “since-ness” of the proposition stated as an “if” in the first premise, and there isn’t such a thing here.

Not valid, and not sound, therefore.

It's a valid deductive argument. You can disagree with the premises if you want, but I can disagree with yours, too. Fair enough?

Actually, it’s not. Neither in form nor in content. But I can show you the form, even if I can’t help you with the content. It should go:

P1: IF X, then Y.
P2: X,
C: Therefore, Y.

So it would go something like:

P1: If a moral axiom can be produced that is premised on Secularism alone, Secularism can ground morality.
P2: I can produce at least one moral axiom premised on Secularism.
C: Therefore, Secularism can ground morality.

That would be a valid argument, in that the form would be correct, even if the content remained untrue. (In philosophy, “valid refers only to form, not to content). But it would never be either true (content correct) or sound (meaning both valid and true), because P2 is false, as we have seen already. However, that example will at least show you what the right form would look like.

[Gary Childress]

Not just plausible. It’s also logically valid and sound.


I’ve really used definitions, rather than assumptions.

That would be Deism. I’ve already suggested that has its own problems, but shares with Secularism the inability to ground an ethics. If God has no teleological intention in Creation, then nothing can be said to be right or wrong for that created being to do.

Well, I’m much in favour of us using logic to do this work, and I commend you on the attempt. It’s the right thing to try to do, even if the results in this case are immediately problematic.

Problem: what is “flourishing” and why is it morally obligatory? You see, in your first principle, you’ve already arbitrarily reinserted objectivism. But the existence of an objective morality is what you’re supposed to be proving, or arguing for not merely taking as assumed. And you’ve started with “if” (a hypothetical) which is an admission of not being certain of the facticity of the claim.

These just restate the assumption buried in the first premise. They aren’t actually necessary: they’re redundant.

You’ve still left this at the level of a hypothetical (an “if”). But you need it to be a “since,” a proven fact.


This would assume the truth of your assumption. But it’s by no means evident that your assumption that there is some specified association between “flourishing” (whatever that is supposed to mean) and a moral duty. And yet it has proved impossible already to propose even one such case.

So basically, the problem is the very basic fallacy of assuming one’s conclusion, rather than proving or arguing for it. We might add that a hypothetical syllogism always requires a second premise confirming the facticity or “since-ness” of the proposition stated as an “if” in the first premise, and there isn’t such a thing here.

Not valid, and not sound, therefore.

It's a valid deductive argument. You can disagree with the premises if you want, but I can disagree with yours, too. Fair enough?

Actually, it’s not. Neither in form nor in content. But I can show you the form, even if I can’t help you with the content. It should go:

P1: IF X, then Y.
P2: X,
C: Therefore, Y.

So it would go something like:

P1: If a moral axiom can be produced that is premised on Secularism alone, Secularism can ground morality.
P2: I can produce at least one moral axiom premised on Secularism.
C: Therefore, Secularism can ground morality.

That would be a valid argument, in that the form would be correct, even if the content remained untrue. (In philosophy, “valid refers only to form, not to content). But it would never be either true (content correct) or sound (meaning both valid and true), because P2 is false, as we have seen already. However, that example will at least show you what the right form would look like.

Modus ponens, what I used is considered a valid argument. What you are contesting are the premises; you're saying it's not a sound argument. However, it is a valid argument. Look it up yourself.

[Belinda]

...there might be a god? Whodda thunk?

There certainly isn't as it would easily have communicated with us...

Well, all you can rule out is a god that that has communicated with us unambiguously. That leaves the door open to all sorts of inscrutable or indifferent gods.

Inscrutable and indifferent gods are Monsanto, Big Pharma. Big Oil, Monsanto, Nestle, cults such as ISIS or Taliban, cults of individuals such as Hitler, political extremism, nationalism, Zionism, Jingoism, colonialism.

the Christian God communicated with us via Jesus . Allah communicated with us via Muhammad and the Koran.

[Belinda]

But Immanuel, you are mistaken thinking I have switched to a religious perspective.

No, rather I just made you a concession: that we don’t have to debate whether or not you believe it. We could just talk about what the narrative means.

Just that it is clear no point arguing with you in secular terms.

So far, my argument has been entirely on Secular terms. All I’ve said is that Secularism has no moral information to offer. Gary has realized it’s true. And I think you can see it’s true, too…without having to accept even one religious postulate.

I am addressing YOUR argument in YOUR terms.

I was trying to give you the same courtesy.

Your "morality comes from god" is OK but your "is inaccessible to man" is not.

No, that’s not what I said. Morality is not normally “inaccessible to man.” But all men have instinctive knowledge of God, so moral awareness is always there in natural cognition. But there’s nothing natural about Secularism. It’s an artificial imposition on the cognition of mankind. Moral knowledge, then, is only inaccessible to Secular man. Not to men in general. All men have a knowledge of morality, a conscience which was put in them by their Creator. Romans 1 says as much.

But Secular man denies that this is so, or even that it’s possible. He will not access normal cognition anymore; he resists it. (See also, Romans 1) And having declared himself to be nothing but secular, and having rejected the knowledge of God which is inherent in him, he’s cut himself off from anything which might explain the presence of that conscience in him, or let him believe it has objective truth to offer him.

Genesis 2 and 3 refute that part of it.

Well, since I didn’t say that, it doesn’t refute anything that matters here, of course. I have always accepted the veracity of Genesis on this, and there’s no contradiction.

Genesis 3:22 has god saying that man now has knowledge of good and evil (has moral sense)

Now you’ve got it. But man is also now fallen and alienated from God. He knows, for the first time, what good and evil really are; but he’s chosen evil. And consequently, as Romans says, he’s warped his moral awareness as well.

God is love . What does that mean to you?
Please see my little list of indifferent and inscrutable gods that patently are not love.

Inscrutable and indifferent gods are Monsanto, Big Pharma. Big Oil, Monsanto, Nestle, cults such as ISIS or Taliban, cults of individuals such as Hitler, political extremism, nationalism, Zionism, Jingoism, colonialism.