thanks for the video review! One question that came up for me is about the comments on Romans 2. If I gathered, you were saying that Paul is not talking about the MORAL law. But you do think the passage is about conscience. But isn't our conscience related to the moral law? And isn't final judgment (Romans 2:16) related to our moral actions? I would be curious what kind of law you think Paul is talking about here, if not moral law. One point I think you misunderstand somewhat is the final part of the video on moral hope. I was responding to the tendency that secular people who, as noted by Charles Taylor, want to retain a transcendent conception of love and justice, but often have not thought through how to ground such a conception. So this section of the video was about exposing that inconsistency. I discussed this at the start of that section. I think you guys missed that framing. I think its appropriate to point out that many people vaguely hope for some kind of "happy ending" but have not thought through that such a hope is unfounded in their worldview. Hope that might clarify because you guys seem puzzled haha. But I do love to preach the gospel, and you are correct that my use of apologetics has this goal in mind!
Thanks for the comment! Yea, I wasn't quite sure where you were coming from with that. I guess part of the problem is that I have fairly unorthodox views as far as atheists go and so a lot of what may be an inconsistency or issue for many naturalistically inclined atheists isn't for me since I'm not a naturalist (at least not of a conventional sort) so much of the inconsistencies or challenges that may arise for them don't arise for me. I do think my worldview is a pretty grim one, though, and I envy people who can retain a sense of hope for something more.
Isn't the issue that the assumption of moral law is actually being used in each case you mentioned? I think you agree if I am not mistaken but seem to mention that if it isn't a moral law that's being referred to than what is being referred to? I think David would say that the issue is transgressing God's law but that God’s law need not be understood under a moral realist framework. On the contrary, divine command theory can be understood as a non-realist theory of morality where all we are doing is transgressing God’s standards but that said standards need not be real in a moral realist sense.
@@lanceindependent There's a button in front of you. If you push it, you will become sincerely convinced for the rest of your life that Christianity is true. Do you push the button?
The moral argument always fails. Christian morality is demonstrably subjective, with each inventing a list of morals they claim their god wants, and yet the poor dears can't show that their god merely exists, much less agrees with them. They also have the problem that they must insist that their god doesn't have to follow these supposedly "objective" morals since they have to invent excuses why it is okay for this god to commit genocide, to kill people for the actions of others, etc. This makes their morality subjective to who someone is. it also shows their morality is little more than might equals right
thanks for the video review! One question that came up for me is about the comments on Romans 2. If I gathered, you were saying that Paul is not talking about the MORAL law. But you do think the passage is about conscience. But isn't our conscience related to the moral law? And isn't final judgment (Romans 2:16) related to our moral actions? I would be curious what kind of law you think Paul is talking about here, if not moral law. One point I think you misunderstand somewhat is the final part of the video on moral hope. I was responding to the tendency that secular people who, as noted by Charles Taylor, want to retain a transcendent conception of love and justice, but often have not thought through how to ground such a conception. So this section of the video was about exposing that inconsistency. I discussed this at the start of that section. I think you guys missed that framing. I think its appropriate to point out that many people vaguely hope for some kind of "happy ending" but have not thought through that such a hope is unfounded in their worldview. Hope that might clarify because you guys seem puzzled haha. But I do love to preach the gospel, and you are correct that my use of apologetics has this goal in mind!
Thanks for the comment! Yea, I wasn't quite sure where you were coming from with that. I guess part of the problem is that I have fairly unorthodox views as far as atheists go and so a lot of what may be an inconsistency or issue for many naturalistically inclined atheists isn't for me since I'm not a naturalist (at least not of a conventional sort) so much of the inconsistencies or challenges that may arise for them don't arise for me.
I do think my worldview is a pretty grim one, though, and I envy people who can retain a sense of hope for something more.
Isn't the issue that the assumption of moral law is actually being used in each case you mentioned? I think you agree if I am not mistaken but seem to mention that if it isn't a moral law that's being referred to than what is being referred to? I think David would say that the issue is transgressing God's law but that God’s law need not be understood under a moral realist framework. On the contrary, divine command theory can be understood as a non-realist theory of morality where all we are doing is transgressing God’s standards but that said standards need not be real in a moral realist sense.
@@lanceindependent There's a button in front of you. If you push it, you will become sincerely convinced for the rest of your life that Christianity is true. Do you push the button?
Thank you, Lance!
Stance Independently First!!
You lucky duck!
The moral argument always fails. Christian morality is demonstrably subjective, with each inventing a list of morals they claim their god wants, and yet the poor dears can't show that their god merely exists, much less agrees with them. They also have the problem that they must insist that their god doesn't have to follow these supposedly "objective" morals since they have to invent excuses why it is okay for this god to commit genocide, to kill people for the actions of others, etc. This makes their morality subjective to who someone is. it also shows their morality is little more than might equals right
👌