Christian Doctrine Undermines its Own Morality

My opponent's rebuttal is part on-topic, part red herring. His second contention concerning the problem of evil is immaterial - no part of my original argument hinges on the problem of evil itself. My opponent is simply attempting to draw myself, and you, the reader, into an unnecessary semantic argument about who gets to define evil. ****************************************************** >> "It is not true that theological fatalism is certainly true..." IT states that determinism does not necessarily follow from omniscience. There are three possibilities here: 1) God is completely temporally omniscient in linear time. 2) God is completely omniscient in the "possible-to-know" sense in linear time. 3) God is completely omniscient in non-linear time. From his rebuttal, it seems he has accepted the third option, while rejecting the first two. His statements endorse the notion that God sees all events as part of a nonlinear spread (as opposed to a continuum) where he can view causality as a sort of tree of events. My opponent's question, or rather, the last part of it, is a sample of begging the question ("could know future, free-willed actions?"). Whether or not the actions in question are free-willed is part of our investigation... as such, my opponent really should rephrase the question. However, to answer what I think he wants to ask, omniscience does indeed necessitate determinism. Consider that all stimuli governing what we perceive as choices are empirical facts. For example, whether we "chose" a red or blue shirt in the morning is entirely dependent on the balance of chemicals and which neurons are firing in our brain. Whether or not we are conscious of these factors is immaterial - an omniscient God would be aware of all empirical facts. The awareness of all these empirical facts allows God to "calculate" our choice with absolute perfection. If God knows all these factors as well as our choices, we are faced with a variety of circumstances. We cannot act in a way contrary to the outcome of God's calculation, for to do so would show God's calculation to be wrong, negating the factor of omniscience. Another problems arises with my opponent's contention about God's status as being outside time. If God is outside time, the phrase "narrowly into the future" that my opponent uses is utterly meaningless. If God is outside time, linear conceptions either mean nothing or are binding - my opponent cannot have his cake and eat it too... *************************************************** My opponent responds to my main argument by stating that God's ways are not our ways. However, he does not respond to the contention I made that Jesus' teachings represent a general rule that humans should practice what they preach. Jesus, being fully human (and fully divine) would be bound by this general rule. Jesus, also being God would be bound to this general rule. Silliness like that aside, the problem still remains that Christian moral code is delivered with God and then later, Christ as the model for moral righteousness. However, when the model breaks with the code, EVEN IF IT IS ALLOWED TO (wish we had italics), this represents a problem for the moral system. Why? Because it simply doesn't give a clear/salient example of what the standard of morality actually is. My opponent tries to squirm around this by stating that the judged cannot judge the judger... which is compelling only for Christians. That's nice, but as an atheist, I am not bound by any of these silly laws, and I can judge God and his immoral actions all I please. ****************************************************** Some responses: >> "Take for example a man who slowly awakes to find woman cutting his stomach. The man will rightly fuss that such an action is evil! But say he finds out that the woman is a doctor..." This example leads us into the standard Christian fallacy of assuming that anything that happens is part of God's larger plan. The argument basically avoids the problem of evil by stating that all evil is part of God's plan and will eventually be rectified. Which of course leads us to ask... Why can't God bring the same end about with less suffering? Should be easy for an omnipotent God... >> "In sum, the only way for my opponent's argument to have a sound premise would be for his conclusion to be wrong." Oh come on - this is textbook poisoning the well. My opponent continually references "hidden premises" and such. The argument is fairly clear. Christian doctrine lacks a clear example for its moral code and the doctrine itself leads one away from moral responsibility. >> "My opponent contradicts the resolution by trying to insist that our ways are the same as God's ways" False - I explicitly set up the argument to avoid a tu quo qua, and on top of that, the argument does not rest on God's ways being the same as our ways - it rests on a lack of a relate-able example for moral behavior and the fact that Christian doctrine leads to empirical determinism, which leads to a lack of ultimate responsibility. >> "he requires proof that God was unlawfully killing – and, unfortunately, or rather fortunately, the only person who can judge that is… well, God. Sorry." What my opponent means to say is that Christians can't judge God. In order to say that God is the only one who can judge himself, he must provide some sort of binding reason why nonbelievers are not allowed to judge God. What is required is not proof that God engaged in unlawful killing... Consider the case of the Biblical flood - certainly thousands of innocent babies were killed. What is required is proof that these are LAWFUL killings. >> "He cannot introduce non-biblical ideas into the debate in hopes of undermining biblical morality" The case of empirical determinism by itself satisfies the resolution. However, in order to actually evaluate Christian morality EITHER WAY, one must examine the case non-biblically. To "evaluate" biblical morality in a biblical context is begging the question - evaluation is not possible when one is told what the answer is before an inquiry is made. ******************************************************************************* I'll combine/reword the second and third prongs of my argument so that we have two main contentions: 1) Omniscience necessitates deterministic conceptualizations regarding the causation of behavior. 2) Christian morality cannot be properly conceptualized because the exemplar giving moral criteria is himself above the moral law. The manner in which he is placed there challenges the conception of what is evil or the attributes of God himself. In order to support his contentions my opponent must show: 1) Free will is possible given God's knowledge of empirical facts. 2) The manner in which God is placed above the moral law presents no challenge to the conceptualization of morality or evil. AFFIRMED.