Jobar

Which God? Which moral code? Lots of both. And none of them are objective.

Jobar

And Wordsmyth has conveniently answered the objections I am sure Normal is about to make! http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=56533

Llyricist

Drat.... I kinda wanted a go at this "objctive moral standard" hooey.

theophilus

I read/skimed this post and found it lacking.
While he questions the coherence of Christian bible-based morality, he does not answer the fundamental question of the basis for an objective atheistic morality.

If the immature have a difficult time discerning the appropriate application of God's law, they at least have a standard to which they may appeal. Atheists have no such standard. They may, and in fact do, attempt to stipulate a standard, e.g., utilitarianism, but this is pure preference.

Whatever failings Dr. Craig may have as an apologist, I think he has many, simply pointing out supposed difficulties with the biblical standard does not establish atheistism as having an objective standard.

The question still stands: how do atheists explain morality as a transcendent, immaterial entity?

Llyricist

Perhaps you should READ it, without the skimming (it ain't the post that's lacking)

They don't, why should they?

theophilus

Joe;

Your question is based on a fundamental misunderstanding, at least where Christians are concerned.

We do not, with the exception of certain pentacostal types, claim to speak for God. We believe God has spoken through his creation, in his word and by his Son. We attempt to speak only where and what he has spoken.

Your assumption is that God has NOT spoken in these ways or that you can evaluate what he has said from a position of disbelief and find it unconvincing.

If he has in fact spoken by these means, then what they say is authhoritative whether it is communicated directly to you or someone else repeats it to you.

Scripture says that all men do know God through his creation but supress this knowledge, i.e., refuse to acknowledge him, because of their sinful rebellion.

God is not "infered" from creation and that is why apologists who try to prove him from creation are mistaken in their approach.

The question for you is how you know anything? How much of what you know have you presonally discovered? Have you personally experienced all the events which comprise your scope of knowledge? Have you personally tested and verified every scientific concept which you assume as part of your system?

Most of what we believe is on the basis of what someone tells us. We believe or don't based on how credible we believe the source to be.

The bible presents itself as the self-attesting, authoritative word of God. As such, its essential message cannot be "proven" by something higher than itself, i.e., human reason.

The test of any presupposition which serves as the basis for a belief system is how well it explains the nature and contentof human experience.

theophilus

Because they presume to speak authoritatively about the nature and meaning of human experience. Because they claim to be able to comprehensively understand the full scope of human existence based on materialism alone. Because morality, as a concept, is clearly not material.

I don't think I'm asking too much.

theophilus

That's odd. I just issued a challenge and you poo-pooed it.

Bill Snedden

Your question assumes without argument that a transcendent, immaterial entity is required for morality to exist. That would need to be demonstrated before your question would be germane.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

theophilus

This of course is subjective. As such, it can neither be proven nor disproven and cannot serve as the basis for someone else's belief. It does not serve as the basis for my belief.