<<Jim, you have courageously and cleverly tricked me into admitting
the blindingly obvious, something which I have never denied in the
first place: that my moral philosophy is subjective. Now, by a
tremendous leap of logic, you claim that your moral philosophy is
superior to mine on the grounds that it is objective, rather than
subjective.>>
It was no trick, just a simple exercise in debate. And while I did accomplish
my purpose, it appears you've failed to recognize what it's really been all
about. I never said my moral philosophy was superior to yours. Indeed, I am
delighted that you have borrowed moral capital and behave has a moral person.
The debate has not been about MORAL equivalence, but rather logical coherence.
The point is that, as a materialist, you are living inconsistently. Once
again, I refer you to my post "Consequences of Materialist Standard," because
all of the arguments are there--none of which you have responded to. Pay
special attention to the arguments from Craig.
<<All I ask of you is this: prove to me, logically and consistently,
without appealing to authority, that your Judeo-Christian moral
philosophy is truly objective and can logically be proven to apply
to all humanity.
You have your assignment.>>
Sorry, teach, but I don't take assignments anymore. I work on a purely
volunteer basis. And I'm going to have to resist your offer to open up a whole
new debate. Based on the last one, I just don't have the time. I can be
insulted elsewhere and watch people avoiding issues on C-SPAN.
But I will give you a couple of good references if you are really desirous of
reaching truth rather than rattling your saber. C.S. Lewis's "Mere
Christianity" offers the finest summary of the moral argument (particularly
relevant for you) available. Two advanced works are Mortimer Adler's "How to
Think About God" and "Truth in Religion."
Vincit omnia veritas,
Jim