#StrawGodFallacy - Rebuttal to #ProblemOfEvil criticism

[Immanuel Can]

I guess it is pretty hopeless trying to communicate with you.

For example, WHY do you conclude I have not read Rawls?

Oh, that's easy: because at first, you just threw out his name, but said nothing whatsoever about what you found plausible in his theory. That gave the impression you were bluffing. If you weren't then that's good.

....this is supposedly about your claim the atheist is Irrational`when defining morality, and what I am challenging,

Then the refutation for my claim is extremely simple: all you have to do is say what you think a moral precept that all Atheists are rationally bound to accept might be. If there's even one, and if it turns out to be defensible, then you've won the point.

Got one?

...morality exists (for an obligatory social animal) because you cannot have an obligatory social animal without it

I really have no idea what you mean by an "obligatory" social animal. Social animals have no obligations. Chimps are social animals: they're also viciously tribal, and routinely exhibit rapist, murderous and cannabalistic behaviours on their own species. So whatever social animals have, it obviously doesn't entail anything we'd recognize as morality.

The PARTICULAR rules of behavior that evolved for an obligatory social animal are just the set that did.

Well, the "rules" for chimps include, indiscriminate sexual rapaciousness, killing members of other 'tribes' of monkeys, and eating the young. Do you have any evidence at all that these behaviours are produced by a simian devotion to moral "rules," or is it just another case of "nature red in tooth and claw," to quote Tennyson.

Evolution is based on random chance changes from what already exists.

You'll have to explain what makes randomness into morality. It's not at all obvious. Randomness is just...randomness. There's no plan in it, no guidelines, and certainly no rules. Not if something is really random.

The Theory of Evolution is supposed to be a naturalistic theory: that is, it's supposed to be about the "IS" of how things are supposed to have happened. There's no implication in the theory that things had to be the way they turned out, or couldn't have been another way, or that they "OUGHT" to have been this way or that. There isn't a sniff of morality in the whole theory.

[CIN2]

Any more than a theist has a rational reason for believing that God exists.

Actually, he does: have you never met anybody who knew such reasons? I find that difficult to imagine, unless you've deliberately been avoiding the entire fields of apologetics, the theodicy problem, natural philosophy, manuscript studies, archaeology, design arguments and cosmology.

That’s a list of areas in which theists have claimed to have rational reasons for believing in God. Presenting us with a list of claims is not the same as showing that any of the claims are justified. If you want to get us to accept some of these claims, you are going to have to do the work and provide support for them, you can’t just take them as read.

Morality CAN'T come simply from the dictates of God.

On the contrary: let me suggest that it's the only place they CAN come from. If you understand the word "God," referring to the Creator and Supreme Being, then you surely understand that. The Creator is the lone power that can say for what the creation has been designed. Who else could?

You are defining God so as to include in the definition his ability to create morality. That is the definist fallacy — you are required to show how God can create morality, and you are trying to do it by including this ability in the definition of ‘God’, which is circular.

In order to provide genuine support for your contention that God created morality, you are going to have to do all of the following:
1. Since God is held to be a disembodied mind (except of course while being embodied as Jesus), you have to show that a disembodied mind is possible. But all the minds we have encountered are embodied, and we have no reason to think a disembodied mind could exist.
2. If you get over that hurdle, you then have to provide reasons to think that the particular disembodied mind referred to as ‘God’ exists. I suggest to you that there are no such reasons.
3. If you get over that hurdle, you still have to show how it is possible for God to create morality. It isn’t good enough to say that he does it by fiat or by decree — neither of these is explanatory.
4. A further point, since you have opted for the less promising option in the Euthyphro dilemma: two corollaries follow from the position that God created morality, namely:
a. in a universe not created by God, rape, murder and torture would be perfectly acceptable forms of behaviour; and
b. God could, if he so wished, have created this universe such that rape, murder and torture were morally good, and being kind to people was morally bad.
Neither of these corollaries formally refutes your position, but I should have thought they would at least give you pause. I suggest to you that anyone who thinks rape, torture and murder could have been morally good simply does not understand what morality is all about.

Two final points:
1. The view that moral beliefs and behaviours arise from evolution has the advantage over your position that there is overwhelming evidence for the existence of evolution, and no evidence at all for the existence of God.
2. The atheist can only be required to explain that evolution can create moral truths if there are moral truths, i.e. if morality is objectively true. (And even then, the moral truths need not arise from evolution, they could arise from other features of the universe.) If it is not objectively true, all he is required to explain is how people come to have subjective moral beliefs.

[Immanuel Can]

You are defining God so as to include in the definition his ability to create morality.

No, I'm pointing out that He's the Creator. But only the Creator can say what a thing is created for, what its rightful purpose is, and what wrongful use would be; so it follows that the Creator is also the definer of morality.

That is quite obvious, I would think. What other agency would qualify?

And if, as Atheism and its sponsoring worldviews assume, none would, then there's no such thing as morality anyway.

So if one believes in morality at all, the only candidate for the touchstone of it would be the Creator Himself.

[puto]

"The name dropping game" is good to show research. This shows you have researched material, and becomes more than an opinion essay. Because if you disagree, then you can see, "Shoulders of Giants" stance. Three hundred words or less should, or ten pages, double spaced guarantee a result. If sufficient and necessary because if you know how to write, you can make a person believe anything you write. "If people cannot write well, they cannot think well, and if they cannot think well, others will do their thinking for them," George Orwell.

[Gary Childress]

You are defining God so as to include in the definition his ability to create morality.

No, I'm pointing out that He's the Creator. But only the Creator can say what a thing is created for, what its rightful purpose is, and what wrongful use would be; so it follows that the Creator is also the definer of morality.

That is quite obvious, I would think. What other agency would qualify?

And if, as Atheism and its sponsoring worldviews assume, none would, then there's no such thing as morality anyway.

So if one believes in morality at all, the only candidate for the touchstone of it would be the Creator Himself.

Is something right because God favors it, or does God favor something because it is right? Oh wait. I already know the answer, God and morality are in perfect unity and oneness. It's part of the "Trinity".

So drowning almost everyone in the world in a huge flood is right because God did it. OK. I think I'm learning from the great logician IC now. I'm beginning to see how "logic" works I think.

[Immanuel Can]

You are defining God so as to include in the definition his ability to create morality.

No, I'm pointing out that He's the Creator. But only the Creator can say what a thing is created for, what its rightful purpose is, and what wrongful use would be; so it follows that the Creator is also the definer of morality.

That is quite obvious, I would think. What other agency would qualify?

And if, as Atheism and its sponsoring worldviews assume, none would, then there's no such thing as morality anyway.

So if one believes in morality at all, the only candidate for the touchstone of it would be the Creator Himself.

Is something right because God favors it, or does God favor something because it is right? Oh wait. I already know the answer, God and morality are in perfect unity and oneness. It's part of the "Trinity".

I have no idea what you think the Trinity has to do with the question. So far as I know, nobody's ever suggested that. But you're right about one thing...sort of: the famed Euthyphro Dilemma, which you are (unaware?) citing depends on a cosmology that is not Biblical. It requires us to assume the existence of multiple gods, each with its own version of "the good." Socrates, who first posed this question, was explicit about that, actually.

The answer is actually quite simple: there is no difference between "good" and "what God wills." They're the same. So your question becomes nonsensical, like asking, "Is this man unmarried, or is he a bachelor." The answer is, "both, because they're the same."

One gets rather bored of repeatedly answering this very simple error in Atheist thinking. But there it is, again.

[Gary Childress]

No, I'm pointing out that He's the Creator. But only the Creator can say what a thing is created for, what its rightful purpose is, and what wrongful use would be; so it follows that the Creator is also the definer of morality.

That is quite obvious, I would think. What other agency would qualify?

And if, as Atheism and its sponsoring worldviews assume, none would, then there's no such thing as morality anyway.

So if one believes in morality at all, the only candidate for the touchstone of it would be the Creator Himself.

Is something right because God favors it, or does God favor something because it is right? Oh wait. I already know the answer, God and morality are in perfect unity and oneness. It's part of the "Trinity".

I have no idea what you think the Trinity has to do with the question. So far as I know, nobody's ever suggested that. But you're right about one thing...sort of: the famed Euthyphro Dilemma, which you are (unaware?) citing depends on a cosmology that is not Biblical. It requires us to assume the existence of multiple gods, each with its own version of "the good." Socrates, who first posed this question, was explicit about that, actually.

The answer is actually quite simple: there is no difference between "good" and "what God wills." They're the same. So your question becomes nonsensical, like asking, "Is this man unmarried, or is he a bachelor." The answer is, "both, because they're the same."

One gets rather bored of repeatedly answering this very simple error in Atheist thinking. But there it is, again.

The Euthyphro was probably the first philosophy text I have ever read and it is not exclusive to the claim in multiple gods only. It is a classic dilemma that has withstood the test of time and indeed applies to the Bible. (Or at least that's what I was taught, not having attending Christian academies) Was the "great" flood morally right because God did it? Do you have an answer for that question? Or did the flood never happen? Maybe you can answer those questions for me? Which is it? Take your pick?

[Immanuel Can]

Is something right because God favors it, or does God favor something because it is right? Oh wait. I already know the answer, God and morality are in perfect unity and oneness. It's part of the "Trinity".

I have no idea what you think the Trinity has to do with the question. So far as I know, nobody's ever suggested that. But you're right about one thing...sort of: the famed Euthyphro Dilemma, which you are (unaware?) citing depends on a cosmology that is not Biblical. It requires us to assume the existence of multiple gods, each with its own version of "the good." Socrates, who first posed this question, was explicit about that, actually.

The answer is actually quite simple: there is no difference between "good" and "what God wills." They're the same. So your question becomes nonsensical, like asking, "Is this man unmarried, or is he a bachelor." The answer is, "both, because they're the same."

One gets rather bored of repeatedly answering this very simple error in Atheist thinking. But there it is, again.

The Euthyphro was probably the first philosophy text I have ever read and it is not exclusive to the claim in multiple gods only.

You clearly didn't read it. It's quite explicit about that. You should read it again. Here: https://classics.mit.edu/Plato/euthyfro.html Use your "find" feature, and pick out the phrase "the gods love," and you'll find it within the first page.

It is a classic dilemma that has withstood the test of time

Rather, it's a silly, old canard that only impresses two groups: the uninformed, and the Atheists themselves, who naively depend up on it, yet don't really know what it is.

[Gary Childress]

I have no idea what you think the Trinity has to do with the question. So far as I know, nobody's ever suggested that. But you're right about one thing...sort of: the famed Euthyphro Dilemma, which you are (unaware?) citing depends on a cosmology that is not Biblical. It requires us to assume the existence of multiple gods, each with its own version of "the good." Socrates, who first posed this question, was explicit about that, actually.

The answer is actually quite simple: there is no difference between "good" and "what God wills." They're the same. So your question becomes nonsensical, like asking, "Is this man unmarried, or is he a bachelor." The answer is, "both, because they're the same."

One gets rather bored of repeatedly answering this very simple error in Atheist thinking. But there it is, again.

The Euthyphro was probably the first philosophy text I have ever read and it is not exclusive to the claim in multiple gods only.

You clearly didn't read it. It's quite explicit about that. You should read it again. Here: https://classics.mit.edu/Plato/euthyfro.html Use your "find" feature, and pick out the phrase "the gods love," and you'll find it within the first page.

It is a classic dilemma that has withstood the test of time

Rather, it's a silly, old canard that only impresses two groups: the uninformed, and the Atheists themselves, who naively depend up on it, yet don't really know what it is.

OK, Einstein who claims to understand the Euthyphro. Here's where "the gods love" comes up:

Euth. Yes, I should say that what all the gods love is pious and holy, and the opposite which they all hate, impious.

Can you explain to me how the dilemma doesn't apply to a single God? Can you tell me whether God is moral for drowning everyone or whether the flood never happened? Which is it Moses?

1. Did the flood happen as stated in the Bible and therefore the flood was moral?

Or

2. Did the flood not happen as stated in the Bible?

Pick your answer, don't be dodgy.

[Immanuel Can]

The Euthyphro was probably the first philosophy text I have ever read and it is not exclusive to the claim in multiple gods only.

You clearly didn't read it. It's quite explicit about that. You should read it again. Here: https://classics.mit.edu/Plato/euthyfro.html Use your "find" feature, and pick out the phrase "the gods love," and you'll find it within the first page.

It is a classic dilemma that has withstood the test of time

Rather, it's a silly, old canard that only impresses two groups: the uninformed, and the Atheists themselves, who naively depend up on it, yet don't really know what it is.

OK, Einstein who claims to understand the Euthyphro. Here's where "the gods love" comes up:

Euth. Yes, I should say that what all the gods love is pious and holy, and the opposite which they all hate, impious.

Keep reading, Gary. You'll find you've rejoiced far too early.

Can you explain to me how the dilemma doesn't apply to a single God?

Already done. If you read my last couple of messages again, you'll find it.

[Gary Childress]

You clearly didn't read it. It's quite explicit about that. You should read it again. Here: https://classics.mit.edu/Plato/euthyfro.html Use your "find" feature, and pick out the phrase "the gods love," and you'll find it within the first page.


Rather, it's a silly, old canard that only impresses two groups: the uninformed, and the Atheists themselves, who naively depend up on it, yet don't really know what it is.

OK, Einstein who claims to understand the Euthyphro. Here's where "the gods love" comes up:

Euth. Yes, I should say that what all the gods love is pious and holy, and the opposite which they all hate, impious.

Keep reading, Gary. You'll find you've rejoiced far too early.

Can you explain to me how the dilemma doesn't apply to a single God?

Already done. If you read my last couple of messages again, you'll find it.

Did the flood happen as stated in the Bible or did it not. Can you at least answer that question?

[Immanuel Can]

OK, Einstein who claims to understand the Euthyphro. Here's where "the gods love" comes up:

Keep reading, Gary. You'll find you've rejoiced far too early.

Can you explain to me how the dilemma doesn't apply to a single God?

Already done. If you read my last couple of messages again, you'll find it.

Did the flood happen as stated in the Bible or did it not. Can you at least answer that question?

Stay on topic, Gary. We're not playing "shotgun" here.

[Gary Childress]

Keep reading, Gary. You'll find you've rejoiced far too early.

Already done. If you read my last couple of messages again, you'll find it.

Did the flood happen as stated in the Bible or did it not. Can you at least answer that question?

Stay on topic, Gary. We're not playing "shotgun" here.

So you're not going to answer a simple easy to answer question. You're not because you know where I'm going and it's somewhere you CAN'T go as an indoctrinated Christian.

[MikeNovack]

Did the flood happen as stated in the Bible or did it not. Can you at least answer that question?

The rapid emptying of Lake Agassiz?

[Immanuel Can]

Did the flood happen as stated in the Bible or did it not. Can you at least answer that question?

Stay on topic, Gary. We're not playing "shotgun" here.

So you're not going to answer a simple easy to answer question.

I'm already answering your question, the first one you asked. I'm just not changing topic in the middle of doing so. We'll deal with each in order.