Greg Bahnsen vs Stein - The Great Debate (part 3 of 14)

Greg Bahnsen vs Gordon Stein - The Great Debate: Does God Exist? (part 3 of 14)

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• induction
• gordon
• clark
• atheism
• uniformity
• of
• nature
• philosophy
• dawkins
• harris
• apologetics
• TAG
• empiricism
• plato

[Myusernamerulez]

@WatchHawk

And you know this how?

[WatchHawk]

@Myusernamerulez - Yes. Here's why: Even Stein and the atheist he refers to in another great debate themselves agree on a definition of God as being "A supreme personal being, distinct from the world, and creator of the world.” He then goes on to try to refute the Causal Argument as proof against God, when by his own definition, and the entire point of God being, that, God is in fact distinct – transcendent – of the world, not subject to its laws which He created.

[Myusernamerulez]

@WatchHawk So your basically saying god is a causeless cause?

[deadmouse217]

@cherrytoasterpastry From their point of view no. From the point of view of everyone else yes. Those acts and others like them undermine the purpose of society, to create a cohesive group of individuals, and are usually not tolerated by other neighboring society's. That is why there are not that many society's that promote slavery when there used to be many. Even national and cultural society's are a part of the world society that has crime and punishment system agreed on by the majority.

[cherrytoasterpastry]

@deadmouse217 So you would agree that, in the past, those who participated in acts such as slavery and infanticide weren't doing anything morally wrong?

[deadmouse217]

@tedrick79 "Without God who determines what is moral?" You and society as a whole determine what is moral. Enforced moral codes have a crime, punishment system that is agreed to by the majority of a society. You are placing God as your moral determiner not yourself. So if God told you to I am forced to assume that to you it is moral. As is the rest of JanJiska's part 2.

[tedrick79]

"Would this be a moral act?" - Without God who determines what is moral? Your question assumes morality which is only put forth forcefully by God. What you believe morality is has no bearing on others. Only a codified, written, enforced (in this life or next) moral code has any bearing on what people should or should not do. Your question is invalid.

[JanJiska]

(part 4)

"The fact that you can relate to their suffering, then, only encourages you to bring the same suffering on them. "

Erm ... what?

If your God told you that for reasons you would not understand it is very important that you to kill the next 5 babies you see, would you do it? Would this be a moral act?

[JanJiska]

(part 3)

"Also, you make an all-too-common leap in logic"

The leap in logic appears to be yours. You seem to have the very common creationality idea that because you can barrage someone with dozens of extremely complicated questions to which they cannot give definitive one line answers that must mean your God is real. As I explained previously this is simply not the case and is nothing but a dishonest God of the gaps argument.

[JanJiska]

(part 2)

In your case of course things are right if God says they are (eg stoning to death someone who gathers sticks on the Sabbath) and wrong if he says they are wrong (homosexuality). The real world is not like this, which is why the theists have to continually reinterpret their texts etc and hence why constant eternal Gods seem to vary their opinions through the ages.