Law´s Fallacious Evil God Posturing and Craig´s Objective Morality Argument: Hammurabi, Plotinus

Green Peacemst Green Peacemst 0 seconds ago @Roper122 You´re as pompous and full of fallacy maneuvers as your hero Law. "They´re theists´ standards (of evil)"? Indeed, yet atheists try to ignore and deny their own foundations and its implications. Dawkins has at least had the relative integrity of denying that morality has any foundations. Craig argues that things like torturing children is objectively wrong, which is an emotional appeal that needs work. However, that foundation is that psychological and sociobiological foundations exist for morality in maternal care and infantile love of mother, and , and so on. People do care about many kinds of people in the natural state, which even underlies alliance behavior amongst tribes. That range of levels of caring reflects orientations, and Siddharta Gautama, the Buddha´s own spiritual seeking resulted in his internal psychological development and the demonstrations of a community based on his teachings and practice that sustains the values of forms of lovingkindness through good deeds. That value and community spread widely. Jesus´ 2 loving Commandments for Moses and God were established and have led to the most powerful and widespread culture ever, with University-based globalization and UN objectives of human rights and sustainability a good part of their modernized accomplishment. The analysis requires causal analysis, whether the argument is theist or atheist naturalist. Craig starts in that direction, but actually falls short at his emotional appeal. However, it is an adequate start. Your pretending that the evil God argument is something else than your summary that I´ve recapped is now your own fallacious conduct. You posture and maneuver, but the argument is exposed. Your lust for ad hom and denialism betrays you. My arguments are sound and conducted with integrity. And when the substantive refutation has been presented, your blather does justify Hawking´s assertion in your case at this time: Your case is dead. Clearly, you have not learned your lesson, and will have to keep banging your head, or have it banged for you. To recap, Law tries to argue that good in the world refutes an evil God, and that is itself fallacious. It doesn´t. Evil behavior is only defined as "evil" in relation to that which is good. Certain ancient Mesopotamians worshiped gods like Marduk and Ishtar, that justified laws like the later Code of Hammurabi from around the 17th century BC/E. "Thou shalt not kill" was not one of the Mesopotamian theo-civil laws, reflecting no corresponding objective. Even so, not all men, women, and children were always slaughtered mercilessly, suggesting the existing dynamic tension between human-biopsychosocial tendencies and a biopsychosocial willingness to be merciful in certain cases since early Neolithic society. Plotinus d. ca 270 AD was a Neoplatonist who argued that there was a transcendent entity: "One," that was a Source, not a self-aware Creator God. It was, however, a perfect Good that emanates existence and can cause mystical union with a person. This causes happiness in a person as a "flight from this world´s ways and things," "eudaemonia." That´s the beginning of an argument. Again, Law´s assertion that good disproves an evil God is all ad hoc, and unjustified, and presuppositionalist. It´s also dissembling, because he claims afterwards that he´s an atheist trying to prove theist contradiction. Plotinus´ neoplatonic "Good" is in relation to the feeling of intellectual happiness. Craig ultimately argues that "good" or "happineness" in Christianity is his version of standard doctrine about the afterlife. Jesus´ parable of the Great Banquet is interpreted with more integrity about taking action in this life. History after Christians developed Universities and led the Reformation and so on show that people like Lucretia Mott, Susan B Anthony, Frederick Douglass, Samuel Gompers, FD and Eleanor Roosevelt, Gandhi, and Rev MLK all identified evil in terms of Jesus of Nazareth´s integrity. Thus, the existence of evil was defined sufficiently by Jesus to make possible and encourage efforts by his followers. The "evil" in the world is identified because God´s Commandments through Jesus have defined it as such in a cultural tradition that has become a significant civilization. That´s a good way to a sound argument. That, at least, I can thank you for the opportunity to let me develop that as I otherwise ignore your fallacious posturing.