Good

[TortoiseDream]

Suppose God exists.

Now let's say God says something is good. Is it good because God said so, or good because God knows what is good? :eek:

[Ian A.]

This is called the Euthyphro Dilemma. Dr. Craig gives the Christian perspective here:

YouTube - Euthyphro Dilemma (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=me21or9T7vI)

[TortoiseDream]

that's all you guys have to say about this?

[Kludge]

that's all you guys have to say about this?

God is perfectly good and perfectly good is God. Because humans are imperfect, God has given his word and you are to take it on faith.... or not. You could rebel and claim morality to be what you say it is, but that would be evil. That said, how do we really know what God claims to be moral? We have to take the senses and interpretations of man (whether yourself, your pastor, or one of the apostles, who, in the New Testament, didn't even write down what they sensed until many years after it happened) on faith, and that faith in imperfect man could lead to all sorts of problems, but so could faith in the wrong god, I guess.

God knows what is good and it is good because God says it is. Man has no basis on which to claim what is and is not moral, unless they are also claiming to be perfect; God.

[amonasro]

Suppose God exists.

Now let's say God says something is good. Is it good because God said so, or good because God knows what is good? :eek:

If God exists, then it's reasonable to assume that he created us.

If he created us, what makes you think that he did so to his own standards? In other words, are we operating on the same mental level as God? If something is "good" in God's eyes, how can we assume that we understand it in the same way and he does?

[TortoiseDream]

God is perfectly good and perfectly good is God. Because humans are imperfect, God has given his word and you are to take it on faith.... or not. You could rebel and claim morality to be what you say it is, but that would be evil. That said, how do we really know what God claims to be moral? We have to take the senses and interpretations of man (whether yourself, your pastor, or one of the apostles, who, in the New Testament, didn't even write down what they sensed until many years after it happened) on faith, and that faith in imperfect man could lead to all sorts of problems, but so could faith in the wrong god, I guess.

God knows what is good and it is good because God says it is. Man has no basis on which to claim what is and is not moral, unless they are also claiming to be perfect; God.

So you're saying it's both; why?


If God exists, then it's reasonable to assume that he created us.

If he created us, what makes you think that he did so to his own standards? In other words, are we operating on the same mental level as God? If something is "good" in God's eyes, how can we assume that we understand it in the same way and he does?

I think you're missing the point. I'm asking is God the source of goodness, or a guide to goodness that is independent of God.

[Ian A.]

is God the source of goodness, or a guide to goodness that is independent of God.

He IS the goodness. God would not create a world that conflicted with his nature, so essentially God IS good. I really think Dr. Craig explained it just fine. :o

[ClayTrainor]

He IS the goodness. God would not create a world that conflicted with his nature, so essentially God IS good. I really think Dr. Craig explained it just fine. :o

So God is a male? is there a "she" lord somewhere?

Also, God is a horrible designer, and created a lot of shitty incomplete lives. Some children spend their entire lives with cancer, and suffer nearly every day! Thanks God for Good, and cancer stricken children!

YouTube - Neil deGrasse Tyson-Intelligent Design? Stupid Design (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNiTsYCkyI8)

"Anything you don't understand, you attribute to God. God for you is where you sweep away all the mysteries of the world, all the challenges to our intelligence. You simply turn your mind off and say God did it." - Carl Sagan

[Sheepdog11]

He IS the goodness. God would not create a world that conflicted with his nature, so essentially God IS good. I really think Dr. Craig explained it just fine. :o

This simply means that the word "good" is redefined as "God's nature". In other words, when we say that God is good, we are merely saying that God is God; the term "good" becomes useless and irrelevant.

So we can say that "goodness" is simply God's nature, but then it becomes a descriptive term for what God is, rather than a meaningful description of moral contrasts. All you could ever conclude is that God is God, and perhaps Satan is Satan, and that Satan is not God. Making any further judgments would be implying some other definition of good. ;)

Furthermore, where did God get His nature? If God gave Himself His nature, then He is still simply deciding what is good and what is not good. If God's nature exists due to other means, then God is not responsible for goodness. Dr. Craig's answer doesn't solve the Euthyphro Dilemma, it simply re-organizes it.

[Ian A.]

So God is a male? is there a "she" lord somewhere?

No.


Also, God is a horrible designer,

How is the existence of stillborn babies, or other horrible deformities EXCLUDE the existence of a god? It doesn't really.

This is the slippery slope that inevitably leads to questions like, why do we have diseases? Why did the Titanic sink? Why do I have this damn mole on my ass? This all eventually leads to the question of why is their evil and suffering in the world?


The question that needs to be asked: what made you think God intended the world to be perfect? Or what makes you think God should have made the world 1% better than now? I say there are MANY reasons why evil and suffering MUST exist if there was a loving God.


where did God get His nature?

God is. His nature is. Besides, if you found evidence of intelligent design, such as spearheads at an archaeological dig--you would conclude that it was designed. You wouldn't need to explain who designed the designer!

[ClayTrainor]

No.



How is the existence of stillborn babies, or other horrible deformities EXCLUDE the existence of a god? It doesn't really.

Never said it did. You understand that i'm not an atheist, right?

I'm saying God is fairly incompetent, inconsistent and rather cruel, if he's in charge of these creations as well as my own.



This is the slippery slope that inevitably leads to questions like, why do we have diseases?
Diseases are micro forms of life, that embed themselves in and consume larger organisms.



Why did the Titanic sink?
It hit an iceberg.


Why do I have this damn mole on my ass?

imperfect nature.


This all eventually leads to the question of why is their evil and suffering in the world?


Because of lack of respect for the individual rights of man.



The question that needs to be asked: what made you think God intended the world to be perfect?
Never said he did, i'm just saying the world is imperfect, and you must give god credit for the imperfections as well. god is as responsible for children suffering with cancer for their entire lives, as he is for every enjoyable life. You must give him credit for hate if you're going to give him credit for love. I personally think the natural explanation of these things, makes a lot more sense, but i don't reject that there could be a much bigger form of life, that we are a part of.


Or what makes you think God should have made the world 1% better than now?
better is subjective.


I say there are MANY reasons why evil and suffering MUST exist if there was a loving God.

Therefore an evil god must exist as well. Either that, or God himself is responsible for creating evil.



God is. His nature is.
Existence is, it's nature is.



Besides, if you found evidence of intelligent design, such as spearheads at an archaeological dig--you would conclude that it was designed.
Arrowheads are natural.

http://img.alibaba.com/photo/11084618/Arrowheads.jpg

If i found an ancient sword, i would assume it was just a pointy metal stick made by an ape and used as some kind of tool. I don't need God to explain that an ape created that sword, and i don't need god to explain that genetic memory are responsible for that apes existence and evolution.

You wouldn't need to explain who designed the designer!
The designer was likely a mammal that was born after his parents mated, and passed on their genetic memory. Not because a supernatural lord "certainly" created everything

All the materials used for the ancient tool were natural, and assembled by a natural form of life, not a supernatural creator ;)

Every single aspect of your body is natural, not supernatural.

[TortoiseDream]

He IS the goodness. God would not create a world that conflicted with his nature, so essentially God IS good. I really think Dr. Craig explained it just fine. :o

But that's just an answer to the question, not an explanation, not an argument. I know your side, now why do you think it's so?

To Clay:

I think everything in its imperfections is actually perfect.

And also, to all:

If God is the absolute good, then anything compared to him is infinitely farther away from him in his goodness. So that makes man absolutely bad, correct?

[ClayTrainor]

I think everything in its imperfections is actually perfect.



provocative :)

[PaulineDisciple]

If God is the absolute good, then anything compared to him is infinitely farther away from him in his goodness. So that makes man absolutely bad, correct?

No, it just means God is the standard (measuring rod) for good. So to the extent that man reflects this utimate good, he is not as bad as he can possibly be.

[PaulineDisciple]

I think everything in its imperfections is actually perfect.

This is either a contradictory statement or you're equivocating on the word "perfect".

[BenIsForRon]

Suppose God exists.

Now let's say God says something is good. Is it good because God said so, or good because God knows what is good? :eek:

I think its because God knows what is good, even though that is a gross simplification, since we're talking about the Alpha/Omega. Consider this quote from Genesis (I'd like to get Ian A's thoughts on this):



1:3 - And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
1:4 - And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

God saw that the light was good, not that he made the light good. I'm not a Christian, just a Deist, but it's some food for thought nonetheless.

[TortoiseDream]

No, it just means God is the standard (measuring rod) for good. So to the extent that man reflects this utimate good, he is not as bad as he can possibly be.

But no matter what a man does, he is infinitely farther away from God in His goodness. So by that token, it's impossible to become worse or better.


This is either a contradictory statement or you're equivocating on the word "perfect".

I'm saying that what some might call "imperfections" are the true perfections.


I think its because God knows what is good, even though that is a gross simplification, since we're talking about the Alpha/Omega. Consider this quote from Genesis (I'd like to get Ian A's thoughts on this):




God saw that the light was good, not that he made the light good. I'm not a Christian, just a Deist, but it's some food for thought nonetheless.

But that then implies a goodness exists independent of God. What is that goodness?

I think one might reply that this cannot be so because God is the source of good. However, that's just refuting the argument by stating the other opinion that can be taken, it's not a rebuttal. It's an assumption about God, namely that He is the source of good.

Is God the source of good? Why? And not just because the Bible says so.

[BenIsForRon]

The thread was not about the definition of goodness. You talked about in your initial post as if we all shared a common understanding of the concept. That's probably true to a certain degree... like kittens, they're good.

http://kittenwar.com/c_images/2006/01/11/46432.jpg

[TortoiseDream]

The thread was not about the definition of goodness. You talked about in your initial post as if we all shared a common understanding of the concept. That's probably true to a certain degree... like kittens, they're good.

http://kittenwar.com/c_images/2006/01/11/46432.jpg

No, that's precisely what the thread is about. What else could it be? Even if you disagree, then I'll start a thread called "what is goodness". We're just talking, it doesn't have to be so rigid.

[Theocrat]

Suppose God exists.

Now let's say God says something is good. Is it good because God said so, or good because God knows what is good? :eek:

That's a great question. The answer is what God says to be good is good because it reflects His own character and nature. God is good, and therefore, He is the ultimate standard for defining and determining what "good" actually is. The alternative or denial of that truth leads to the eradication of what "good" is itself.

[TortoiseDream]

That's a great question. The answer is what God says to be good is good because it reflects His own character and nature. God is good, and therefore, He is the ultimate standard for defining and determining what "good" actually is. The alternative or denial of that truth leads to the eradication of what "good" is itself.

Well that's just selecting an answer from one of the options I provided. Do you have an argument for this position? Why does good have to reflect His nature? It seems your position is under this assumption.

[Sheepdog11]

That's a great question. The answer is what God says to be good is good because it reflects His own character and nature. God is good, and therefore, He is the ultimate standard for defining and determining what "good" actually is. The alternative or denial of that truth leads to the eradication of what "good" is itself.

Is God's nature good because good is "right"? Or is good "right" because that's what God's nature happens to be?

...


When you define "good" as simply "of God's nature", you lose any meaning the word "good" has. Saying "God is good" means nothing more than saying "God is God". In other words, under this definition, we cannot say that God is good in the sense that good is usually understood. You simply have two words with the same meaning.

[Theocrat]

Is God's nature good because good is "right"? Or is good "right" because that's what God's nature happens to be?

...


When you define "good" as simply "of God's nature", you lose any meaning the word "good" has. Saying "God is good" means nothing more than saying "God is God". In other words, under this definition, we cannot say that God is good in the sense that good is usually understood. You simply have two words with the same meaning.

I think you're just arguing semantics there because "good" is by its own nature "right." "Good" cannot be "wrong" because then it ceases to be good. So when God reveals Himself as being good, it is already assumed that goodness is righteous (or right).

The heart of your question is seeking to define good outside or above God's existence. Since there are no absolutes outside or above God, the standard for judging what is "good" begins with God Himself. Yes, saying "God is good" is similar to saying "God is God." If goodness cannot exist outside of God, then it is logically coherent to conclude that goodness begins and is the essence of God Himself.

Consider the alternative, though. If goodness is not determined by God's nature, then who gets to decide what "good" really is? Is it each individual? If that is so, "goodness" is only based on what a person wants it to be, and thus, it leads to confusion and chaos. Is good decided by society? If that is so, then on what basis does society understand "good," and is the appeal to society to determine "good" good itself? Is goodness determined by the strongest or smartest or wealthiest in society? If so, then goodness can change based on who becomes the strongest, smartest, or wealthiest. Essentially, it is the ethic of "might makes right."

So without God, goodness cannot exist in a consistent, rational, and final way. Those who would try to dismiss God from explaining what "good" is also get rid of the standard or pillar for determining goodness. That, itself, is not good. ;)

[Sheepdog11]

I think you're just arguing semantics there because "good" is by its own nature "right." "Good" cannot be "wrong" because then it ceases to be good. So when God reveals Himself as being good, it is already assumed that goodness is righteous (or right).

Righteous is a description of good outside of simply being God's nature. How do you get there?


The heart of your question is seeking to define good outside or above God's existence. Since there are no absolutes outside or above God, the standard for judging what is "good" begins with God Himself. Yes, saying "God is good" is similar to saying "God is God." If goodness cannot exist outside of God, then it is logically coherent to conclude that goodness begins and is the essence of God Himself.

Determining that "good" means anything other than "of God's nature" is circular.


Consider the alternative, though. If goodness is not determined by God's nature, then who gets to decide what "good" really is? Is it each individual? If that is so, "goodness" is only based on what a person wants it to be, and thus, it leads to confusion and chaos.

Is good decided by society? If that is so, then on what basis does society understand "good," and is the appeal to society to determine "good" good itself? Is goodness determined by the strongest or smartest or wealthiest in society? If so, then goodness can change based on who becomes the strongest, smartest, or wealthiest. Essentially, it is the ethic of "might makes right."

Isn't that how you would describe humanity's state of affairs right now? I think there are two flaws with your reasoning; first, it is an argument from consequence (which has no basis on whether something is true) and secondly, the consequence you are suggesting is already real.


So without God, goodness cannot exist in a consistent, rational, and final way. Those who would try to dismiss God from explaining what "good" is also get rid of the standard or pillar for determining goodness. That, itself, is not good. ;)

Why must there be a standard pillar for determining goodness in order to explain how the world is?

[PaulineDisciple]

Determining that "good" means anything other than "of God's nature" is circular.

Although this was addressed to Theocrat, I would like to jump in here on this point and I believe that Theocrat would agree with my perspective.

When anyone attempts to establish an ultimate authority or standard, circular reasoning becomes unavoidable. By definition, ultimate authorities are just that, ultimate authorities. If you appeal to something else to prove your ultimate authority, what you used to prove your ultimate authority then becomes your ultimate authority.

For the Christian, God and His self verifying word is the ultimate authority and with this being the case, the highest validation that the Bible can possibly have is God’s own word. So for sake of argument, if the Christian God exists, the ultimate proof for His existence can only be His own word.

Now if your criterion for establishing sound reasoning is that no one can engage in circular reasoning even when dealing with ones ultimate authority, then you must exclude everyone’s reasoning. For example; for most atheists, logic and reason are the ultimate authority, now does he use logic and reason simultaneously while trying to prove that logic and reason are his ultimate authority? The answer is obviously yes, because if he does not use logic and reason when doing so, he just becomes a blithering idiot.

So the real question that needs to be answered is not whether someone is using circular reasoning when trying to establish their ultimate authority but whose ultimate authority makes all other ultimate authorities intelligible. This is where the Christian position can be demonstrated to be the superior view.

You might be asking, how is the Christian position superior. But before I demonstrate this, I would like to expand on what I mean by intelligible. By intelligible, I mean that it “makes sense” in a particular persons world view. IOW, it means it fits what that person says about what exists (their metaphysic), how they know what they know (their epistemology) and how they should act as a result (their Axiology).

Now in the examples I’ve used, the atheist position can not make sense of why we ought to use logic and reason to resolve our differences, whereas in the Christian view, it makes perfect sense as to why we should be kind and reason with each other and not use force to get our way in life, since doing so would violate the ultimate standards that God has given us in His word. When tyrants come by force to take what is the atheists’, it does not make sense for him to appeal to any invisible, absolute, invariant, abstract laws like laws of morality since according to his view of reality, these kinds of things do not exist.

Most atheists are unwilling to follow the logical conclusions of their chosen view of reality although people like Fredrick Nietzsche, David Hume and Bertrand Russell were willing to concede many of the points I am making in regard to things like laws of nature and morality.

So even when it comes to our most fundamental assumptions of life that we as human beings all take for granted, the atheist has no rational basis for holding to any of these assumptions, he secretly has to borrow the intellectual currency of the Christian in order for his argument to make sense given his view of reality.

Therefore, the Christian may reason in a circle, but it is not the kind of vicious circle that the unbeliever must rely on. The Christians circular reasoning makes reasoning itself and all other abstract things that humans experience, such as love, beauty, human dignity, morality etc. intelligible.

"we are not getting rid of God because we still believe in grammar" Frederick Nietzsche

[Sheepdog11]

Although this was addressed to Theocrat, I would like to jump in here on this point and I believe that Theocrat would agree with my perspective.

No problem. I'm always inviting of intelligent discussion.


When anyone attempts to establish an ultimate authority or standard, circular reasoning becomes unavoidable. By definition, ultimate authorities are just that, ultimate authorities. If you appeal to something else to prove your ultimate authority, what you used to prove your ultimate authority then becomes your ultimate authority.

Agreed to an extent. Axioms are, by definition, self-evident, but will always lack a satisfying explanation.


For the Christian, God and His self verifying word is the ultimate authority and with this being the case, the highest validation that the Bible can possibly have is God’s own word. So for sake of argument, if the Christian God exists, the ultimate proof for His existence can only be His own word.

But presupposing the Christian God also presupposes other things, including a state of identity, a consciousness outside yourself, and a consciousness with the ability to perceive that God exists. When you assume God exists, you have previously assumed these other axioms.


Now if your criterion for establishing sound reasoning is that no one can engage in circular reasoning even when dealing with ones ultimate authority, then you must exclude everyone’s reasoning.

I wasn't asking for reasoning behind axioms, I was asking how Theocrat built on his prior definition of "good", which he himself said was only defined as "God's nature".


For example; for most atheists, logic and reason are the ultimate authority,

(same with you ;))


now does he use logic and reason simultaneously while trying to prove that logic and reason are his ultimate authority? The answer is obviously yes, because if he does not use logic and reason when doing so, he just becomes a blithering idiot.

So the real question that needs to be answered is not whether someone is using circular reasoning when trying to establish their ultimate authority but whose ultimate authority makes all other ultimate authorities intelligible. This is where the Christian position can be demonstrated to be the superior view.

You might be asking, how is the Christian position superior. But before I demonstrate this, I would like to expand on what I mean by intelligible. By intelligible, I mean that it “makes sense” in a particular persons world view. IOW, it means it fits what that person says about what exists (their metaphysic), how they know what they know (their epistemology) and how they should act as a result (their Axiology).

Now in the examples I’ve used, the atheist position can not make sense of why we ought to use logic and reason to resolve our differences, whereas in the Christian view, it makes perfect sense as to why we should be kind and reason with each other and not use force to get our way in life, since doing so would violate the ultimate standards that God has given us in His word. When tyrants come by force to take what is the atheists’, it does not make sense for him to appeal to any invisible, absolute, invariant, abstract laws like laws of morality since according to his view of reality, these kinds of things do not exist.

I don't understand what it is with Christians and "ultimate standards", or "absolute, objective morality". Just because atheists don't have an objective standard for something, does not mean they are invalidated from pursuing their subjective standards. I don't believe in, nor follow moral absolutes, and at the end of the day I don't believe you do either.

I simply see no reason to believe objective morality exists, nor that it is necessary to explain what we see in the world.


Most atheists are unwilling to follow the logical conclusions of their chosen view of reality although people like Fredrick Nietzsche, David Hume and Bertrand Russell were willing to concede many of the points I am making in regard to things like laws of nature and morality.

So even when it comes to our most fundamental assumptions of life that we as human beings all take for granted, the atheist has no rational basis for holding to any of these assumptions, he secretly has to borrow the intellectual currency of the Christian in order for his argument to make sense given his view of reality.

What are these assumptions?


Therefore, the Christian may reason in a circle, but it is not the kind of vicious circle that the unbeliever must rely on. The Christians circular reasoning makes reasoning itself and all other abstract things that humans experience, such as love, beauty, human dignity, morality etc. intelligible.

"we are not getting rid of God because we still believe in grammar" Frederick Nietzsche

What do you mean by making these things intelligible? Are you suggesting that outside absolutes, we would be incapable of even subjectively experiencing and promoting love, beauty, human dignity and morality?

[TortoiseDream]

The heart of your question is seeking to define good outside or above God's existence. Since there are no absolutes outside or above God...

ORLY?



...the standard for judging what is "good" begins with God Himself. Yes, saying "God is good" is similar to saying "God is God." If goodness cannot exist outside of God, then it is logically coherent to conclude that goodness begins and is the essence of God Himself.

Where your argument for this? It's obvious that if God defines good, then your position follows. Why does God define good? Why is good God and God good?


Consider the alternative, though. If goodness is not determined by God's nature, then who gets to decide what "good" really is? Is it each individual? If that is so, "goodness" is only based on what a person wants it to be, and thus, it leads to confusion and chaos.

I think that's the way things are, in within the chaos there is tranquility.


Is good decided by society? If that is so, then on what basis does society understand "good," and is the appeal to society to determine "good" good itself? Is goodness determined by the strongest or smartest or wealthiest in society? If so, then goodness can change based on who becomes the strongest, smartest, or wealthiest. Essentially, it is the ethic of "might makes right."

Correct, though this isn't always physical. It is impossible for two persons to share the same exact perspective of good; if that were the case, they would be the same people! Good is not an absolute.


So without God, goodness cannot exist in a consistent, rational, and final way. Those who would try to dismiss God from explaining what "good" is also get rid of the standard or pillar for determining goodness. That, itself, is not good. ;)

Why does good have to be consistent? Why does it have to be rational? In short, why does it have to appeal to human reason, the standards with which you're criticizing the alternative?

[PaulineDisciple]

1. But presupposing the Christian God also presupposes other things, including a state of identity, a consciousness outside yourself, and a consciousness with the ability to perceive that God exists. When you assume God exists, you have previously assumed these other axioms.

2. I don't understand what it is with Christians and "ultimate standards", or "absolute, objective morality". Just because atheists don't have an objective standard for something, does not mean they are invalidated from pursuing their subjective standards. I don't believe in, nor follow moral absolutes, and at the end of the day I don't believe you do either.

3. I simply see no reason to believe objective morality exists, nor that it is necessary to explain what we see in the world.

4. What are these assumptions?

5. What do you mean by making these things intelligible? Are you suggesting that outside absolutes, we would be incapable of even subjectively experiencing and promoting love, beauty, human dignity and morality?

1. Yes, presupposing a state of identity, a consciousness outside yourself… are also assumed, this is also unavoidable.
2. If there are no absolute, objective standards of morality, then it makes no sense to be critical of anyone for anything. At the end of the day, at least I have a view of reality, God exists, he has given us absolute rules to live by… and therefore it makes sense to make moral judgments on the actions of others, for you, making any judgment for any reason does not make sense given your belief that everyone has their own standards of morality. These two beliefs do not comport with each other.
3. Then the term morality becomes less than what we want it to mean in our conversations about morality. If all you mean by morality is you personally like this and dis-like that, then morality is reduced to same moral significance of you like chocolate but not vanilla. Therefore, in a case where someone wantonly mows down a group of human beings with a machine gun is no morally better or worse than someone mowing their lawn.
4. Assumptions like why we should reason with each other instead of using force to get our way. If there are no absolute objective standards for settling our differences then someone using a gun to get his way is no morally better or worse that someone that does not use force.
5. What I mean by intelligible, is that a certain belief comports with and does not contradict other beliefs that a particular individual has. IOW, it makes sense to believe both propositions without introducing a contradiction into your system of thought.

The example that we are trying to hammer out in our conversation is morality. The point that I am trying to make is; does it make sense to say on the one hand that morality is just each individual’s personal subjective opinion of what they like or dis-like and then turn around and make a moral judgment on another individual that has his or her own personal subjective tastes. Stated this way, it should be obvious that you can’t have it both ways. If one does not presuppose that a sovereign God exists that has given us absolute objective standards of morality, the logical implications of this belief, if you don’t want to have a contradiction in your system of beliefs, is that you must accept that morality is reduced to each individuals personal subjective opinion and is no more or less moral than anyone else’s personal subjective opinion. If you do not believe in truths that transcend the individual, you should not make judgments on other people that transcend yourself.

This why these kinds of arguments are called transcendental arguments. Transcendental arguments ask the question, what would have to be true in order for this argument to make sense in the overall scheme of things in a particular persons view of reality. It appears that Theocrat has studied this kind of argumentation fairly well and I appreciate his contributions on this board. I have benefited greatly from his posts.

In the case of morality, it doesn’t make sense to make a moral judgment that transcends yourself and apply it to another individual if you believe that there are no such transcendent truths that apply to anyone outside yourself. Non-Christians do this all the time and unfortunately, most Christians haven’t figured out how to properly respond to these kinds of arguments. The proper response to non-Christians when they make moral judgments against anyone outside themselves, is to point out that in order to do so, they would also have to assume that these standards that transcend themselves actually exist which also assumes a transcendent law giver exists.

I hope this helps and thank you for your thoughtful comments.

[Theocrat]

Although this was addressed to Theocrat, I would like to jump in here on this point and I believe that Theocrat would agree with my perspective.

When anyone attempts to establish an ultimate authority or standard, circular reasoning becomes unavoidable. By definition, ultimate authorities are just that, ultimate authorities. If you appeal to something else to prove your ultimate authority, what you used to prove your ultimate authority then becomes your ultimate authority.

For the Christian, God and His self verifying word is the ultimate authority and with this being the case, the highest validation that the Bible can possibly have is God’s own word. So for sake of argument, if the Christian God exists, the ultimate proof for His existence can only be His own word.

Now if your criterion for establishing sound reasoning is that no one can engage in circular reasoning even when dealing with ones ultimate authority, then you must exclude everyone’s reasoning. For example; for most atheists, logic and reason are the ultimate authority, now does he use logic and reason simultaneously while trying to prove that logic and reason are his ultimate authority? The answer is obviously yes, because if he does not use logic and reason when doing so, he just becomes a blithering idiot.

So the real question that needs to be answered is not whether someone is using circular reasoning when trying to establish their ultimate authority but whose ultimate authority makes all other ultimate authorities intelligible. This is where the Christian position can be demonstrated to be the superior view.

You might be asking, how is the Christian position superior. But before I demonstrate this, I would like to expand on what I mean by intelligible. By intelligible, I mean that it “makes sense” in a particular persons world view. IOW, it means it fits what that person says about what exists (their metaphysic), how they know what they know (their epistemology) and how they should act as a result (their Axiology).

Now in the examples I’ve used, the atheist position can not make sense of why we ought to use logic and reason to resolve our differences, whereas in the Christian view, it makes perfect sense as to why we should be kind and reason with each other and not use force to get our way in life, since doing so would violate the ultimate standards that God has given us in His word. When tyrants come by force to take what is the atheists’, it does not make sense for him to appeal to any invisible, absolute, invariant, abstract laws like laws of morality since according to his view of reality, these kinds of things do not exist.

Most atheists are unwilling to follow the logical conclusions of their chosen view of reality although people like Fredrick Nietzsche, David Hume and Bertrand Russell were willing to concede many of the points I am making in regard to things like laws of nature and morality.

So even when it comes to our most fundamental assumptions of life that we as human beings all take for granted, the atheist has no rational basis for holding to any of these assumptions, he secretly has to borrow the intellectual currency of the Christian in order for his argument to make sense given his view of reality.

Therefore, the Christian may reason in a circle, but it is not the kind of vicious circle that the unbeliever must rely on. The Christians circular reasoning makes reasoning itself and all other abstract things that humans experience, such as love, beauty, human dignity, morality etc. intelligible.

"we are not getting rid of God because we still believe in grammar" Frederick Nietzsche

I couldn't have said it better myself. :)