Um, OK.
>4>PB: Furthermore, you are asking a requirement that you do not
>fulfill yourself. You have not, and cannot, prove materialism.
>5>RS: Nor have I claimed that I could. I'm not the one claiming that my
>moral system is transcendent and objective.
>
>The second sentence misses the point (the content of the argument
>could be over almost anything). The point is you cannot prove your
>presupposition (of materialism).
What exactly am I supposed to *prove* here? I have explained the foundation
of my morality, why it is internally consistent, and why it works for millions
of other people as well. If that's not good enough for you, then you have
impossible standards and I have better things to do with my time.
>What I am suggesting is a different approach with conditions that we both
meet:
>1) Start with our respective presuppositions, 2) Logically extend arguments
based
>on these presuppositions and see where they go, and 3) Check for internal
>logical consistency in the arguments and the ability of each to
>describe "moral" reality.
I've been doing that all along. It is Jim who is afraid to look at the internal
logical consistency of his argument.
>6>PB: We have already agreed above that the assertion of God's
>existence is a presupposition, like materialism. As a Christian, God
>is my starting point, not the end to be proved.
>7>RS: That's fine. Your system works for you, my system works for me. They
are both
>workable, self-supporting systems. That's all I am saying.
>
>Thank you for saying that's fine. However, they are not both
>logically consistent self-supporting systems.
Yes they are. I have laid out the details of my argument in a logical and
consistent way, and neither you nor anyone else has pointed out anything
wrong with it. You have pointed out that it is based on a subjective assumption
(that empathy is good), but every argument is based on *some* subjective
assumption, and Christian morality is also based on one (that we should do
what God says). Why is your subjective assumption better than my subjective
assumption?
>The system presupposing
>the Christian God is. The system presupposing materialism is not.
>That's what I (and many others) are saying.
Say it all you want. You have not provided any proof. The chain of logic
from my initial assumption to my final outcome is perfectly consistent
and quite strong.
>8>PB: I don't have to "prove God" any more than you have to
>"prove" materialism. However, if I would argue anything, I would
>argue that the existence of God is self-evident, and the inability of
>materialists to maintain consistency with their own premise of
>materialism is direct testimony to that fact.
>9>RS: And I could just as easily argue that the inability of Christians to
maintain a similar
>consistency is pretty solid proof that God doesn't exist.
>
>I distinguished two types of consistency (in the other post): logical
>and behavioral. The consistency you (and materialists, generally) have been
>unable to maintain is logical.
In your opinion. Reality disagrees.
>The lack of consistency you refer to is behavioral.
Actually no, it is logical. As I have pointed out in other posts (posts to which
nobody has even tried to respond) one can find Biblical quotes to support
racism,
genocide, slavery, and all sorts of other acts. This, along with all the other
contradictions in the Bible, leads me to the logical conclusion that there
can be
nothing transcendent or objective about something so inconsistent and
illogical as
Biblical scripture.
>As a footnote, you should be aware that Christianity acknowledges that
>no one lives up to the objective biblical standard.
Maybe that's because nobody has yet found out what the "objective biblical
standard" *is*. Of course, I'm sure you think you have it, but I guarantee
that a hundred years from now the people who call themselves Christians will
look back at your moral standards and shake their heads. Of course, they may
well do the same to me, because I, like you, am a product of my times. But
at least I am not claiming to be the holder of an objective, universal,
eternal moral standard.
_____________________________________________________________
| Russell Stewart |
| http://www.rt66.com/diamond/ |
|_____________________________________________________________|
| Albuquerque, New Mexico | diamond@rt66.com |
|_____________________________|_______________________________|
2 + 2 = 5, for very large values of 2.