The portion of the second sentence above is OK.
3>RS: and if one wants to claim that Christian morality is absolutely
objective, one must objectively prove the a-priori assumption.
Not exactly. This is one of the points where you go off the rails.
See below.
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). Yet, you still claim your presupposition
to be true and build your arguments from it. You can't require of me something
you cannot do yourself (see 6).
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.
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. The system presupposing
the Christian God is. The system presupposing materialism is not.
That's what I (and many others) are saying.
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. The lack of consistency you refer to is behavioral.
As far as behavior is concerned, you are free to hold Christians accountable
to their own standard of behavior if that is what you want to do. We
should not be allowed to claim an objective standard and then simply
ignore it. Quite frankly, the Bible warns us that our sin provides
occasion for unbelievers to blaspheme. However, you cannot hold
Christians (or anyone else) accountable to your own subjective standard.
To do so is to claim that you are god and are the source of an
objective, transcendent standard that we must follow, and denies the
very thing you assert: subjectivity (these last two sentences are a
partial description of the inconsistency problem for materialists).
As a footnote, you should be aware that Christianity acknowledges that
no one lives up to the objective biblical standard. This is one basic
definition of sin (lit. -to miss the mark). That's no excuse. But
that is a reason to be without hope apart from God's grace and
provision in Christ Jesus.
10>PB: Even the materialists testify to
transcendent non-material realities such as rationality and morality.
11>RS: Once again, you are proceeding on the (subjective) assumption
that rationality and morality are transcendent concepts.
You are correct that I assume rationality and morality are
non-material transcendent concepts, i.e., they apply to everyone. As such, they
are not just subjective entities.
12>PB: But if they are consistent with their premise, why would they
have any reason to assume the reality of such things?
13>RS: Why would we not?
This (13) is an example of what I meant by an inability to be
consistent (logically consistent). Above, you imply an objection to
the argument based on the assumption of transcendent concepts of
rationality and morality. But in this last sentence, you ask a
question that implies you assume them too, which is exactly what I
said in statement 10. You can't object to something you agree is
true.
Regards, Paul
P.D. Brown
MPI Chem. Ecol. WSU/UI