Please explain logically how objective values are contradictory? You maintain my question “…is like asking [you] to explain why a square circle is logically contradictory.” And then conclude, “It simply is the case that both of these concepts are by definition distinct from one another.” No one disputes circles and squares are distinct. Your main point is misplaced. If the concept of objective moral values is logically contradictory, as you claim, then a conceptual analysis is due on your part to demonstrate it. But what you level against objective moral values is no simple task. You must show logically there is no possible world in which objective moral values can exist. But as I see it, by the use of possible world semantics, a conceptual analysis of ‘objective moral values’ can be shown as logically coherent.
First, lets fill in the content of the words “objective
moral values.” By objective moral
values, we mean moral values/facts that are universally binding on all people
regardless of whether or not people acknowledge them. For example, an act of
rape is morally wrong no matter if anyone believes it or not.
Why is God essentially rational? I think this kind of
question is wrongheaded. It is like the question, who made God? The question is
fallacious or worse utter nonsense. I kindly take it to be the former than the
latter. It is a category mistake on the part of the questioner. What the
question is fundamentally asking is why God, a being who is necessarily
rational, is not contingently rational. But clearly such a question confuses
the categories of being, namely the necessary and contingent.
Define your use of the term "created"? Do you mean
A can cause something to come from nothing? If so, then if something can come
from nothing, then we don't need God (whatever that is if indeed an is).
I maintain that God, who is omnipotent (i.e. consistently by
nature all powerful), brought the universe, and humans into existence from no
thing. It is the biblical doctrine of creatio ex nihilo. And my view conforms to biogenesis. Thus something
only comes from something. But if you deny the biblical doctrine of creatio
ex nihilo you are left with affirming the
absurd conclusion that something comes from nothing by nothing. In the words of
William lane Craig, “ such a view is worse than magic.”
What is God? "God is a person?" Obviously you
don't mean that in the usual sense. A person has qualia and physical
correlates. If you say no! Then its like saying God is a person which is not a
person, or at least not like any person you have experienced which tells me
nothing!
What is qualia? Please define qualia. There are plenty of
definitions for God. But since you asked me, I would subscribe to the
Westminster or London Baptist Confession of Faith’s definition. Now if you wish
to tell me the word ‘God’ has no referent; and in effect, all Christians are
deluded when they talk about God, such a tactic gets us nowhere in discussion.
Moreover, by leveling such a claim, you are taking upon the burden to prove all
Christians are deluded when they speak of God and the word itself is meaningless. But
there are countless books that would demonstrate the term ‘God’ is meaningful.[1]
Moreover, your questions show you are out of step with the Christian
renaissance in contemporary analytic philosophy. God is
absolute personality, the one in the many, Tri-personal: Father,
Son and Holy Spirit. He is absolute in lordship, authority, presence,
knowledge, power and goodness.
Because value judgments are by nature intrinsically
subjective. They are
personal like, dislikes, expectations (first person experiences) etc.
So is it your subjective value judgment that all value
judgments are subjective? This is clearly self-refuting. I do not deny the subjective component
to values but nor do I deny the normative component to values either. And the
latter component was the main focus of my discussion with you.
Define your usage of the term "reality" without
committing a fallacy of definition.
What is the fallacy of definition? If you are claiming it is a tautology I'd refer you to Quine's paper Two Dogmas of Empiricism. It is obvious this question is simply a tactic to get away from debating. All one has to do to reveal this fact is ask, "is it true to reality you
do not know what ‘reality’ means?" By reality I mean the actual state of
affairs.
I know what I
mean when I use the term "know," but I'm asking you to define your
usage of the term.
Again, another obvious question simply to get away from debating. But I will answer. The term “know” refers to knowledge, which is traditionally understood as justified true belief. But after Alvin Plantinga came along, it might properly be changed to warranted true belief.
Again, another obvious question simply to get away from debating. But I will answer. The term “know” refers to knowledge, which is traditionally understood as justified true belief. But after Alvin Plantinga came along, it might properly be changed to warranted true belief.
"Why care
about truth?" The
reason I project value onto truth etc, is because it suits my goals.
Goals to what ends? So truth is merely instrumental? It is instrumental
to what? If there is no ultimate end to the means, then one is left in an
infinite regress.
[1] JP Moreland
and Kai Nielsen. Does God Exist? The Debate between Theists and Atheists
(Prometheus, Amherst, 1993)p.p.57-59,156-158.
Kenneth Boa and Robert Bowman Jr. The Unchanging Faith
in a Changing World (Thomas Nelson, Nashville, 1997)p.p.72-76.
Smith, George H. Atheism: The Case Against God. 2003. PDF.
p.22.
Adler, Mortimer J. How to Think about God: A Guide to a 20th-Century
Pagan.(Macmillan, New York, 1980)p.p.78-93.
William Lane Craig. Defining God
No comments:
Post a Comment