If God commanded people to start eating babies, what would you do?

There are three possible answers:

1) "No, it would still be immoral." That one's easy, and the best answer, and of course it demolishes the idea that God dictates what is moral.

2) "God would never do that, because God is moral." In order for this statement to have any meaning, morality must exist independent of God -- otherwise we could not decide whether God would do a particular thing based on whether or not that thing was moral, because that would be synonymous to asking ourselves whether God would do a particular thing based on whether God would do a particular thing.

3) "Knives out and start the rotesserie!" This, and only this, preserves the idea that morality comes from God, and only from God.

"Of course, anyone (or, at least any sort of theist) can claim to have a self-authenticating witness of God to the truth of his religion. But the reason you argue with them is because they really don't: either they've just had some emotional experience or else they've misinterpreted their religious experience."

He says he is, philosophically at least, open to the possibility of being wrong (emphasis added):

"So you present arguments and evidence in favor of Christian theism and objections against their worldview in the hope that their false confidence will crack under the weight of the argument and they will come to know the truth. (This also is what the atheist should do with me.)"

In practice, however, Craig makes it clear that no evidence could shake his self-authenticating "witness":

"...if Jesus' bones were actually found, then the doctrine of his resurrection would be false and so Christianity would not be true and there would be no witness of the Holy Spirit. So if Jesus' bones were found, no one should be a Christian. Fortunately, there is a witness of the Holy Spirit, and so it follows logically that Jesus' bones will not be found."

Craig's problem is that by assuming his religious beliefs to be true a priori, he leaves no room for him to examine or challenge his own assumptions to any rigorous standard. Every challenge to his beliefs is met by apologies and rationalization, without any real consideration that he might just be wrong. In short, the burden of proof Craig demands of challenges to his beliefs are much higher - and arguably impossible to achieve - than those he asks or offers in support of his own preconceptions.

This means Craig never examines his own beliefs with the rigour that he challenges the beliefs of others. It is fair to say that Craig is simply dishonest in his handling of evidence for and against Christianity.

Further, Craig's defence of his beliefs leads him to support ludicrous conclusions, such as this:

"God ensures that no one who would believe the gospel if he heard it remains ultimately unreached. Once the gospel reaches a people, God providentially places there persons who He knew would respond to it if they heard it. He ensures that those who never hear it are only those who would not accept it if they did hear it. Hence, no one is lost because of a lack of information or due to historical and geographical accident. Anyone who wants or even would want to be saved will be saved."

Craig argues here that given a free and fair choice, most people created by God would rather be punished eternally in hell with no possibility of reprieve than spend eternity in heaven. He says God placed non-Christians specifically in locations and situations where they were less likely to hear the "Gospel". He says that no matter how sincere a non-Christians religious belief or life is, they deserve nothing less than to burn eternally in hell.

As John Hick, Theologian and Philosopher of Religion, puts it:

"this is manifestly an a priori dogma, condemning hundreds of millions of people without any knowledge of them; and even many other very conservative Christian philosophers have found it repugnant. For on any reasonable view exclusivism, practiced within any religion, is incompatible with the existence of a God whose grace and mercy extends to the entire human race."

In Craig's favour, however, his position does at least allow for the possibility of reasoned argument.

Steve Hays of Triablogue bases his belief on what he calls "divine revelation":

"At the level of basic epistemology, science can never disprove the Bible because divine revelation is our only clear window onto the world. Otherwise, we perceive the world through the stained-glass solipsism of our inescapable subjectivity."

Here Hays denies even the possibility of rationality or reason as the basis for anything. That his beliefs are inescapably subjective will be obvious to everyone else - but it seems this will forever be a mystery to poor Steve.

'Google search results showing that "documentary hypothesis" appears within the syllabi of some classes at "evangelical" schools is not proof of your claim (that I have paraphrased) that it is a "widely accepted hypothesis taught as sound methodology at the majority of evangelical schools".'

If you cannot accept that even Evangelical Seminaries teach the documentary hypothesis, then seriously I have to wonder...

Here is Conservapedia of all sources on the subject: "The great majority of Bible experts accept one or another version of the Documentary Hypothesis. However it is rejected by some Fundamentalists... The Documentary Hypothesis is taught in at most universities and seminaries."

in 2002:

"...in academia it's an established fact that this whole time period is legendary... there’s a strong anti-Bible bias in the academic journals that publish archaeological findings..."

Here's more of Mr Fosi, lecturing the ether:

"I bring it up not to ridicule you, but to provide one bit of evidence that, contrary to your fallacious claim, that I have noticed your links. The point here is not that you haven't furnished links or information, but that what you have provided does not appear support the claims you are making."

According to his profile, Mr Fosi is "struggling to finish his phd". I hate to think in what.

"I would say that the quickest way for us to stop the decline in church attendance is to embrace what... Frank [Turek is] doing..."

Self-appointed "apologist" and christian warrior Wintery Knight has to be the most blatant example of a "liar for christ" that I have come across in my many years of blogging.

The author of a six-page treatise on how morality cannot exist without God has something seriously wrong with his own moral compass.

He seems to think it is ok for him to edit comments on his blog to change their meaning, put words into his commenter's mouths and avoid questions he can't answer.

Consider this comment I made on a thread discussing the Kalam Cosmological Argument:

contrararian says:

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

04/12/2010 at 4:03 PM

The only authority you cite is William Lane Craig, a man who (circular reasoning central) believes the Bible is the infallible word of God. Need I mention he is also not a cosmologist?

The argument fails because (a) we do not know that premise 2 is true; and (2) it is special pleading to insist that "god‚" requires no cause but that the universe must.

My "authorities" are albert einstein, stephen hawking, and the 90%+ of eary & life scientists who do not believe in "god"

The answer is that WE DO NOT KNOW what caused the universe. I don't. You don't. It is as simple as that.

Since that proposition is quite clearly true, it invalidates any traditional form of christianity. Q.E.D.

Rather than show his readers what I had written, Wintery Knight took "moderation" rights to new heights. He removed the bulk of my comments, added words I did not say, and without giving any indication that my post had been edited, he posted the following under my name as if this is what I had written:

The argument fails because (a) we do not know that premise 2 is true.

I DO NOT KNOW what caused the universe. Q.E.D.

He completely misleads his readers (and himself) about my argument. He gives no indication of any edits. He puts words into my mouth. Is this not bearing false witness? Is he not lying?

Here is my next comment:

contrararian says:

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

04/12/2010 at 4:59 PM

You deleted the bulk of my post. How amusing. Afraid, much?

I do not have to prove anything. You have tried to support the Kalem argument and you have failed.

Science cannot explain how the universe came into being. It is as simple as that. That leaves your premise 2 unproven – and worse, you cannot explain why if p2 is true, it should not also apply to your “god”.

I also pointed out that authorities in cosmology do not support your argument – but you deleted that along with the rest of my post.

Are you going to show my full post, or do I have to declare you a coward and a scoundrel? ;>

Wintery Knight edited that comment as well. The next comment as written was as follows:

contrararian says:

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

04/12/2010 at 5:11 PM

You do not consider that Albert Einstein & Stephen Hawking are authorities on Cosmology?

I have a prediction, Wintery Knight, that you will end up deleting either all my posts or all links to my blog from this thread.

Wintery Knight is the perfect example of why Fundamentalist Christianity* is false.

Its believers and defenders have to lie to defend it. They lie about what other people say. Blatantly, openly and repeatedly.

He has no shame. Why should he? After all, who is the real deceiver but he that denies what Wintery Knight tells us is god's word?

UPDATE: Click here for the latest on Wintery Knight's dishonesty.

[* Edited 18 April to add: "Fundamentalist". I have no issue with moderate religion of any stripe. Moderates do not have to lie about what others says to support their beliefs. By "fundamentalist", I mean the belief that a holy book is "inerrant" and "true". Such beliefs can only be supported by lying about what other people say. Don't agree? Then feel free to argue with me!]

Self-appointed "apologist" and christian warrior Wintery Knight has to be the most blatant example of a "liar for christ" that I have come across in my many years of blogging.

The author of a six-page treatise on how morality cannot exist without God has something seriously wrong with his own moral compass.

He seems to think it is ok for him to edit comments on his blog to change their meaning, put words into his commenter's mouths and avoid questions he can't answer.

Consider this comment I made on a thread discussing the Kalam Cosmological Argument:

contrararian says:

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

04/12/2010 at 4:03 PM

The only authority you cite is William Lane Craig, a man who (circular reasoning central) believes the Bible is the infallible word of God. Need I mention he is also not a cosmologist?

The argument fails because (a) we do not know that premise 2 is true; and (2) it is special pleading to insist that "god‚" requires no cause but that the universe must.

My "authorities" are albert einstein, stephen hawking, and the 90%+ of eary & life scientists who do not believe in "god"

The answer is that WE DO NOT KNOW what caused the universe. I don't. You don't. It is as simple as that.

Since that proposition is quite clearly true, it invalidates any traditional form of christianity. Q.E.D.

Rather than show his readers what I had written, Wintery Knight took "moderation" rights to new heights. He removed the bulk of my comments, added words I did not say, and without giving any indication that my post had been edited, he posted the following under my name as if this is what I had written:

The argument fails because (a) we do not know that premise 2 is true.

I DO NOT KNOW what caused the universe. Q.E.D.

He completely misleads his readers (and himself) about my argument. He gives no indication of any edits. He puts words into my mouth. Is this not bearing false witness? Is he not lying?

Here is my next comment:

contrararian says:

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

04/12/2010 at 4:59 PM

You deleted the bulk of my post. How amusing. Afraid, much?

I do not have to prove anything. You have tried to support the Kalem argument and you have failed.

Science cannot explain how the universe came into being. It is as simple as that. That leaves your premise 2 unproven – and worse, you cannot explain why if p2 is true, it should not also apply to your “god”.

I also pointed out that authorities in cosmology do not support your argument – but you deleted that along with the rest of my post.

Are you going to show my full post, or do I have to declare you a coward and a scoundrel? ;>

Wintery Knight edited that comment as well. The next comment as written was as follows:

contrararian says:

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

04/12/2010 at 5:11 PM

You do not consider that Albert Einstein & Stephen Hawking are authorities on Cosmology?

I have a prediction, Wintery Knight, that you will end up deleting either all my posts or all links to my blog from this thread.

Wintery Knight is the perfect example of why Fundamentalist Christianity* is false.

Its believers and defenders have to lie to defend it. They lie about what other people say. Blatantly, openly and repeatedly.

He has no shame. Why should he? After all, who is the real deceiver but he that denies what Wintery Knight tells us is god's word?

UPDATE: Click here for the latest on Wintery Knight's dishonesty.

[* Edited 18 April to add: "Fundamentalist". I have no issue with moderate religion of any stripe. Moderates do not have to lie about what others says to support their beliefs. By "fundamentalist", I mean the belief that a holy book is "inerrant" and "true". Such beliefs can only be supported by lying about what other people say. Don't agree? Then feel free to argue with me!]

"President-elect Obama will likely become the first Muslim President, and may use the Koran to be sworn into office at his inauguration on January 20, 2009."

• The Communist Manifesto
  
• The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill*
  
• The Very Hungry Caterpillar
  
• Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
  
• One Dad, Two Dads, Brown Dad, Blue Dads
  
• A Hand In The Bush: The Fine Art of Vaginal Fisting
  
• The Conservative Soul: How We Lost It, How to Get It Back