Morality does not require a law-giver any more than the laws of nature do. You are merely repeating an argument here that Russell directly refutes in the essay with Euthyphro's Dilemma: "The point I am concerned with is that, if you are quite sure there is a difference between right and wrong, you are then in this situation: is that difference due to God’s fiat or is it not? If it is due to God’s fiat, then for God Himself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that God is good. If you are going to say, as theologians do, that God is good, you must then say that right and wrong have some meaning which is independent of God’s fiat, because God’s fiats are good and not bad independently of the mere fact that He made them.
This is not a serious or reasoned response to the point at hand.What a bunch of absolute nonsense, this is nothing more than philosophical spin...
Unsupported.The moral law and the laws of nature most certainly do require a law giver
Already addressed.Without God as primary, you have absolutely no answer for the existence of language, personality, reason, and conscience, nor do you have an answer for why the laws of nature exist or DNA
That's not even remotely his argument, as I already explained to you in post #399.This whole thing boils down to the fact that since God exists and God is good, you have absolutely no answer for why evil and suffering exist, but the Bible states it plainly, it because of mankind's rebellion and sin
I appreciate you being one of the very few to attempt a full rebuttal, and thank you for your post. But I'm saddened to see yet another poster compelled to resort to a blatant ad hominem against Russell. It seems he really gets under the skin of some people, making them want to attack him instead of his arguments.
You're confusing necessary and sufficient conditions. It's weird how many people do this. Try answering what I asked.
Where's the strawman? When did the universe not exist?
Because that's neither true nor what ad hominem means.Bertrand Russell was a critic of God, the Bible, and true Christianity based upon nothing more than his fallacious opinions, why do you not call that 'ad hominem?'
Sure, and if someone could do that I'd like to hear it.To use truth, facts, and reason to expose Russell arguments as false is not ad hominem
A statement is not an argument, and that one is not part of what we are discussing.Let me give you an example of one of Bertrand Russell's fallacious arguments, Russell once made the statement, "What science cannot explain, humanity cannot know," well that statement is not a statement of science and it is obviously false, I can think of several illustrations where humanity has knowledge that is not based upon science!
We don't know that the universe had an absolute beginning, or that only things without beginnings don't have causes.Here is what you stated, "That's not his argument. He is rather pointing out that if God can be an exception to all things needing a cause, then so can the universe. The first cause argument is unsupported on both premises."
Russell's strawman is comparing the universe to the Biblical God
The Biblical God is uncreated, without beginning
Science knows the universe had a beginning and I stated a reference, Dr. John Lennox
Exactly. It merely states that Russell is wrong. While Russell explains why Romans 1 is wrong.
Unsupported.Have you ever read Romans 1? You made a false statement
A transparent rationalization that doesn't show Russell to have been wrong. Again, disagreeing with him isn't to refute him. Romans 1 merely advocates a design argument. Russell explains why such arguments are mistaken.Romans 1 explains that people like Russell suppress the truth that is both obvious to the eye and truth that is written on the heart of every person and they are without excuse
Same issues being put to you. Russell hasnt identified Jesus Christ sufficiently to correctly identify the necessary conditions for his criticism. Told you way back.That's not what I asked. You're again confusing necessary and sufficient conditions, just as BMS did.
It is relevant and you did confuse them.Except that isnt relevant and ultimately I didnt confuse it