Atheists who believe in moral truth must be nihilists.

[_A Light in the Darkness]

I've already addressed this.

I replied.

[_Yong Xi]

I don't believe this. I believe God, our father, helps us develop to realize our potential as far as our will allows. God warns us about the consequences of our behavior and guides us to actions that will ultimately be beneficial to our welfare and growth.

Can you cite examples of how God does this? Does He do this for atheists?

Please answer the question. Give us examples. This is central to your premise. Don't claim that your thread is being derailed.

You claim that God warns believers of the consequences to their behaviour and guides them to actions resulting in growth. Please expand. I don't know what you are talking about. Let's talk about the reality of belief.

[_beastie]

As it happens, if God is above spatiotemporal reality and is able to be a sufficient cause to effect aggregate value, then a universe with God retains the modal possiblity of of not descending into nihilism given typical moral realist views and inifite space-time.

Please place this within the LDS context I offered above.

[_A Light in the Darkness]

Please answer the question. Give us examples. This is central to your premise.

It has absolutely nothing to do with my premise. God could be the most evil thing in the universe and the argument would still hold. You, on a totally off-topic post, implied that I believe that God punishes people for not following obscure rules I noted that this is not how it works according to my beliefs. I see God as a revelator of beneficial information for our development. Perhaps you should become conversant with contemporary thought on the LDS faith. Regardless, it is tangential to the topic at hand. I'm not here to have my beliefs dissected and assualted for your personal amusement. I will explicate and defend them at my leisure and when it is relevant to do so.

[_Yong Xi]

Please answer the question. Give us examples. This is central to your premise.

It has absolutely nothing to do with my premise. God could be the most evil thing in the universe and the argument would still hold. You, on a totally off-topic post, implied that I believe that God punishes people for not following obscure rules I noted that this is not how it works according to my beliefs. I see God as a revelator of beneficial information for our development. Perhaps you should become conversant with contemporary thought on the LDS faith. Regardless, it is tangential to the topic at hand. I'm not here to have my beliefs dissected and assualted for your personal amusement. I will explicate and defend them at my leisure and when it is relevant to do so.

You made the claim and now either refuse or cannot expand on it or defend. Where have I implied anything?

Fine, you see God as a revelator of beneficial information for development. Are you able to explain exactly the process whereby this works? Look, you brought it up.

[Guest]

You made the claim and now either refuse or cannot expand on it or defend.

You implied something about my beliefs, and I corrected you about the nature of my beliefs. I did not make a positive assertion meant for defense or examination in this thread beyond clarifying what I think. I'm something of an expert on that subject, you know.

Where have I implied anything?

In this thread, when you contrasted nihilism against a view that you were strongly implying was my position. You did this when it was completely irrelavent to the flow of discussion

Fine, you see God as a revelator of beneficial information for development. Are you able to explain exactly the process whereby this works?

Exactly? No. Can you explain exactly how one obtains knoweldge that the sun is yellow? If you say yes, then you are claiming to know more than more than any epistemologist or scientist ever and I'd love to hear it. If such 'exact' defenses were neccessary, knowledge would not be possible and we'd all be radical skeptics. You're the embodiment of Francis Bacon's observation that, "A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion." Now get on topic or leave.

[_A Light in the Darkness]

Please place this within the LDS context I offered above.

The argument works within the context of space-time. So long as gods may dwell outside of it, which is a legtimate interpetation of the LDS faith, then there is no problem. You are equivocating different senses of the word universe. The problem you are having is that my argument is that in a godless world, x is the case. Simply pointing out that in a world with God, x is still the case doesn't refute the first propostion. I consider the second point a secondary discussion. I am interested in discussion of the first point. This is why trying to play the "you too!" game is both 1) derailing and 2) not a logical refutation of the intial argument.

[_Yong Xi]

You made the claim and now either refuse or cannot expand on it or defend.

You implied something about my beliefs, and I corrected you about the nature of my beliefs. I did not make a positive assertion meant for defense or examination in this thread beyond clarifying what I think. I'm something of an expert on that subject, you know.

Where have I implied anything?

In this thread, when you contrasted nihilism against a view that you were strongly implying was my position. You did this when it was completely irrelavent to the flow of discussion

Fine, you see God as a revelator of beneficial information for development. Are you able to explain exactly the process whereby this works?

Exactly? No. Can you explain exactly how one obtains knoweldge that the sun is yellow? If you say yes, then you are claiming to know more than more than any epistemologist or scientist ever and I'd love to hear it. If such 'exact' defenses were neccessary, knowledge would not be possible and we'd all be radical skeptics. You're the embodiment of Francis Bacon's observation that, "A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion." Now get on topic or leave.

I think perhaps you have mistaken me with someone else. Go back and read what I have posted, which is but a few posts.

Get control of yourself or leave.

[_beastie]

The argument works within the context of space-time. So long as gods may dwell outside of it, which is a legtimate interpetation of the LDS faith, then there is no problem. You are equivocating different senses of the word universe. The problem you are having is that my argument is that in a godless world, x is the case. Simply pointing out that in a world with God, x is still the case doesn't refute the first propostion. I consider the second point a secondary discussion. I am interested in discussion of the first point. This is why trying to play the "you too!" game is both 1) derailing and 2) not a logical refutation of the intial argument.

In a godless world, x is only the case if one insists on using the infinite universe as a backdrop. The only way you can avoid the same problem in the theist world is by basically drawing an X and saying "and here is where a miracle happened".

You still have not addressed why this argument has any significance in determining the reality of the world around us.

[_beastie]

Hmmm. I'm rethinking my earlier vote for Cdowis, although that was always somewhat doubtful due to his apparent lack of interest in atheism, and thinking of going with Pahoran instead.

This seems classic Pahoran, at least a Pahoran trying to reign himself in a tad:

I gather than in these quarters, my thread title is likely to be met with rolled eyes and hyperventilating dismissals pouring from flushed faces.

Regards!