C: Therefore, we should behave this way.
The problem with leaving this argument as it is ( or presenting it this way
for that matter) is that it is incomplete. So to refute this argument
really does nothing to help the position of non-theists. As I said earlier
the stated argument simply doesn't call all of the facts into question. The
premise states that God exists and "wants" us to behave in a certain way.
The more correct way to put this is God exists and "commands" us to behave
in certain ways. God's law was not given to plead with us to follow certain
behavior pattern. It is not to be taken as God saying, "I'd really
appreciate it if you'd love your neighbor, and love me with all you heart,
soul and mind." God commands us to behave in certain ways. To command
something is to require it. God requires that we behave in certain ways. If
we don't behave the way He wishes we will be punished. Why would God punish
us for not behaving the way He wants? Because God is the Holy and Just
Standard of Morality. How is it that I know God is the Holy and Just
Standard of Morality? He has revealed that to me and the rest of the world
in the pages of the Bible...His persoanl revelation to the world. Since God
is Holy, He knows what is best for us, He knows what behavior patterns will
aid us in life more. Since God is Just, He can judge us in righteousness
when we fail His standards.
The next thing that is wrong with the argument is that it is missing a
premise. the Argument should be stated like this:
P1: God exists and commands us to behave in certain ways.
P2: We should obey God's commands.
C: Therefore, we should behave in certain ways.
Generally speaking the second premise "should" be presupposed...but only by
Christians. We know this to be a fact and stating it is almost redundant to
us. But when speaking to non-Christians we sometimes forget and comtinue to
assume that the second premise is common knowledge. I don't think that the
argument stated in this fashion will cause any logical problems. That is
not to say that non-theists won't like it, that is a given. The problem
there is that just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it isn't true.
Of sourse, the same goes for us Christians. Just because we like the proof
doesn't mean it is true. But the challenge here is that it is the only one
which makes can make sense out of ethical absolutes. Because of the
transcendental nature of God's existence and the fact that ethics is based
upon His divine character (which never changes, nor lies) it can be
supposed that there are ethical absolutes. It is wrong to murder. It is
wrong to steal. It is wrong to commit adultury. These things have been
designated as wrong by God and revealed to humanity in the Bible. Woe to
him who challenges the law of God and refuses to obey it.
///////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
"...the Christian Theistic position...must be shown to be the position
which alone does not annihilate intelligent human experience." Van Til
"Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of
this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?"
II Corinthians 10:5
Michael A. Sisk "Malachi"
malachi@voy.net
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\//////////////////////////////////////