@DPadenAkaterry@God_Questioner You are just asserting normative force, not explaining or justifying it. You can argue that normativity is built in ultimate reality’s structure, but that is the same “brute fact” ending you critisized before, do you see the problem here?
@DPadenAkaterry@God_Questioner I get the ontological claim, but I don't see here a solution for its lack of normative force, there is no "ought" from this. If you consider no need for further explanation on this point, your argument falls on the same brute fact you said secular moral frameworks have.
@DPadenAkaterry@God_Questioner I don’t know if it is on purpose, but nothing in your answer adresses the core critique regarding your tautological statement with zero normative authority.
When you claim your view provides a fixed standard, where is it? In the bible?
@RayComfort The difference between OT and NT god is so evident, during early christianity the gnostic movement of Marcion of Sinope was large and responsible for the first version of a new testament. If it wasn’t for the political skills of the charlatan from Tarsus, you’ll believe this too
@DPadenAkaterry@God_Questioner I f those qualities are only good because they belong to God, then the account appears circular.
Hope this time you answer the question about human consensuated norms and their normative force.
@DPadenAkaterry@God_Questioner You answer doesn’t adress the critique. DNT sacrifices normative authority, losing that precious “ought” you like so much. If you say that God’s nature is worthy of being followed because it is loving, just, and merciful, then those qualities end up doing the evaluative work.
@DPadenAkaterry@God_Questioner The “binding force” thing is a weird part of your argument, don’t you follow norms derived from human consensus? Do you consider there is no binding force in laws, for example?
@DPadenAkaterry@God_Questioner There are several critiques to the third horn exit in DNT, here’s one of them: If “good” just means “God’s nature” then saying “God is good” becomes a tautology rather than a substantive moral claim, loosing its normative authority.
@DPadenAkaterry@God_Questioner As previousy discussed, Eutyphro's dilemma prevails as Divine Nature Theory fails to solve it.
"Psychopathic" describes personality traits with negative impact on society, we don't need any "oughts" to evidence the OT god as psycopath (further evidence of it being man-made).
@DPadenAkaterry@God_Questioner Theism can't provide objective grounding for morality, as the internal critique of Eutyphro's dilemma reveals. You also do have secular models for objective morality, even intersubjective models that work pretty good and permit labeling "the flood" fairy tale as psychopatic
@darwintojesus How about actually raising your kids instead of spending your day trying to ragebait atheists over here with horrible low tier apologetics?
@darwintojesus With the amount of time you spend over here trying to ragebait atheists, you are deffinitely not grinding for your children, you anon grifter
@Marhadur@laderechadiario El gusto que me da cuando cuentas anónimas tratan de ofenderme con mi físico 🤣 cuando les pido de vuelta que compartan una foto suya, para confirmar que son un desperdicio genético total, nunca se atreven, eres capaz de hacerlo o se te van las pelotas para arriba?