And with that I’m going to close comments and direct us elsewhere, as noted in the very last one on the bottom of the page.

I can’t acknowledge that I purposely or even knowingly took your words out of context. (I honestly never thought I was being sly, disingenuous, or even technical.) I have trouble acknowledging that what I did was not exactly as you challenged me to do.

Of course, I will accept that you did not intend for me to actually apply a rigorous criticism to the specific statements you made in the way I framed to you. I don’t know how you came to that understand it so differently, but if that was what you understood than so be it.

And if it makes you feel any better I do agree with your final determination that Statement One represents a circular argument, and Statement Two does not qualify for that strict definition (but still falls under a broader rubric of circular reasoning — my original claim was that the arguments were circular).

My purpose in these discussions has always been to challenge what I think are questionable premises. My second goal has been to see that the same standards apply to both sides of the argument — if I see you (or others) taking someone to task for practices you also exhibit, I will point that out as often as I can without getting kicked out.

We okay?

A couple of days ago, I started two threads to discuss the substance of this topic. Later this morning I’m going to close discussion on this one now so that we can move to those new ones for real. This will give you all one further chance to comment here first.

First: Is there grounding for morality outside of theism?

Second: Does that question even matter?

Some of you may have noticed that Adonais left one final comment here that is gone now. I removed it for violation of the comment guidelines, about which I had given him a warning. Nevertheless it there was substance in it worthy of thinking about. I have already communicated to him that I plan to post a main blog entry on it sometime in the next couple of weeks, and that he will be welcome to join the discussion on that. He is out of this discussion now, however.

For what seems like the umpteenth time it’s going to be said to you, I have to say that 1) atheism is not a moral system

Why are you saying this? Did I imply that it was? No, in fact, I hold that it denies the basis for the single true moral system.

that does not mean that atheists must have no moral system. (In fact, they pretty much have to get it from somewhere else. And they do.)

And the entire point of my every argument is that any so-called source is insufficient given the starting premise.

I’m not sure what you mean by “do I see the consequences?” Are you making a reactionary argument or something?

You/I said:

You: I think you are refusing to accept the tenet that atheists do not see their lack of belief in the existence of God as having any moral consequence whatsoever.
Me: Do you see the the consequence?

You agree with Adonais that morality is an arbitrary and loosely defined set of behavours in which we determine our own oughts based upon our relativism.
You don’t see any moral consequences to this? How would we justify imposing our morality on others if we know that we have arbitrarily determined what that would entail?

Hi Adonais,

But this is a failing only when you presuppose that there must exist such a thing as absolute good and bad; it’s a problem created by your own philosophy. Allow that good and bad exist only as relative concepts, and there is no philosophical problem at all, and no practical one either.

I do hold that it is a failing and have demonstrated why. The philosophical problem is that you have a system which claims to dictate behaviour with reference to what is right and wrong but it entails that right and wrong do not exist.
Practically, one problem is that it reduces all punishment to utilitarian and denies the existence of justice.

Knock yourself out with meta-ethics all you like, but unless you can connect back to ethics and to how your theories apply to us, the real people who are the subject of ethics to begin with, it is ultimately nothing more than an academic exercise and only so much word games.

Only because the meta-ethics are in place can these properly work back to a subject of ethics. Otherwise all you have are arbitrary, loosely defined rules enforced against those to whom they don’t even apply.
I think the comment I made to which you made this reply is my best answer:

It’s not about whether or not they are effective. Chains and bars are effective at limiting behaviour as well, but they do not dictate morality or define the good. Anybody can dictate and enforce behaviour by dominating another. But when somebody comes along who cannot be dominated and says that he/they will not follow said pattern of behaviour then we have a new set of rules and new rights and wrongs. Obviously none of these systems is actually determining the good and is touching upon it only by accident.
As I’ve said before, if all somebody means when they say “I am moral” is that they can follow rules then they are misusing the word “moral”.

===

In all of your description that followed, you have described personal opinion and consensus of opinion and called it the appearance of objectiveness.

True. It’s only persons who can give their opinion about how morality appears. We have no other subjects to ask. It is the very appearance of objectivity that your systems try to explain away.

Your extreme example of destroying the planet is poorly chosen to demonstrate objective law, since that is something that we all (well, not these guys) agree would be bad for everybody.

It would not be bad for those who profit and die in the interim and who don’t care at all about future generations.
Since good and bad are relative they are no more bad than anybody who would prefer they save the planet for the good of the future generation.

That’s just self-preservation, selfish-genery at work, no reason to construe this as an appearance of transcendental law at work.

You would think their selfish genes would care so much about their future progeny that nobody then would run the risk of destroying the planet for profit. But they do.

Objective laws is one possible speculation about the underlying mechanisms of such observed commonalities, but the observation of many dissimilarities and cultural differences destroys, at least in my view, the appearance of objectiveness underlying the phenomenon.

But not in the view of all the people who chastise and make moral proclamations thinking they are actually talking about something greater than their own feelings – thus, the appearance of objectivity.

Here the moral spheres of the west and the east have drifted towards different positions, clearly indicating their relative nature. It is this sort of phenomenon that you have to explain somehow in your theory of objective morality, and I’m still waiting for you (or just someone) to do this.

You’ve never received an answer to this? It’s not difficult. We weigh one moral ought against another as fallen human beings and come up with our best approximation of the real good. This is a question of epistemology and not ontology.

Why are you using the words of an atheistic philosopher of science to describe objective morality for your theistic philosophy?

Why? Because testimony from a hostile witness is the most compelling. And to Ruse, morality appears objective. So much so that he actually finds a way, within his atheistic world view (I know, which is not a world view) to actually refer to morality as objective. Bad behaviour is actually, objectively wrong, in his opinion.

But again, it appears from your description that Ruse’s meaning of “objective” is not at all the same as your meaning. Again you are equivocating between different meanings of objective.

Not at all. This is about appearances. Morality appears to be so objective, so beyond human preference and subjectivity, that Ruse finds a way to call it objective, even without the transcendent moral being that grounds morality. The fact that I think that it requires the existence of God as the ground for this standard which transcends human opinion doesn’t change the fact that Ruse believes there is such a standard.

What? I have not the faintest idea what you’re on about here, but it sounds vaguely insulting.

As I said before, those who don’t agree will be ignorant or superficial. When you asked for evidence that morality appears objective I said:

Every relativist I’ve talked to here has admitted that our language treats morality as objective and that the vast majority of people who use the terms “good” and “bad” believe they are referring, at least in some cases, to more than opinion and societal norms.

To which you replied:

How many relativists have you talked to that were well read in ethics? Did any of them mention contractualism or consequentialism?

Thereby charging just what I said – that they are ignorant or have a superficial knowledge of the subject.

If you want to explain what is observed by objective mechanisms, you have to come up with a theory that explains not only the similarities but also the differences.

Easy – error. Sometimes a planet which is objectively spherical and revolves around a star appears to be flat and stationary. The objective truth is not affected by the differences which accrue when fallible subjects observe them.

You mean like altruism? I’d note that we also observe murder, rape, infanticide, slavery, dominance, etc.

Indeed we do: all the more commonalities between ourselves and other animals requiring a powerful theory to explain these. Thank you for making the point.

The point does not reduce to behaviour. The point is whether or not a behaviour is right and how or why we come to know this. Altruism is no more right than rape if the test is “we inherited it from non-human animals”. And the inheritance of behaviours from animals says nothing about whether that behaviour is right or wrong. The case of animal behviour has nothing to say about morality until you can show that morality, and not behaviour was inherited.

This is not an explanation or even an argument: all you show here is that you, again, presuppose the existence of absolute values and base your analysis of moral relativism upon that, unsurprisingly finding it to be contradictory or worthless.

It’s only worthless if you ask it to do what it claims to do -identify right and wrong. If you want it to control behaviour and enable admonition or coercion then it is fine.

Care to back that up with any argument, analysis or evidence?

Arguments for God? Sure.
Here are a few.
http://www.theapologiaproject.org/two-dozen.htm

The way I see it, our moral system is grounded well enough in society and biology to help us live decently in an immensely complex society.

It has no grounding to determine right and wrong. All it can do is tell you what is allowed, what is in fashion or what seems most beneficial. This does not need the language of morality and misuses the language when it appropriates it.

Already at the level of only a handful of individuals, some system of regulation (e.g. observance of rules and/or authority) appears to be necessary for successful group living. If tighter group living in itself increases the inclusive fitness of the species (by offering better protection, food sharing, etc), then evolution sees to it that such systems of regulation that contribute to the inclusive fitness of a species will evolve in tandem with its society.

1) Regulation is not morality. All you need is power for that – like our ancestors demonstrate. 2) I don’t share your faith that evolution will just produce whatever is deemed necessary by humans after-the-fact.
By your evolutionary account the belief in right/wrong is an illusion and there is no reason for evolution to have created it.

Forgive my presumptuousness, but I can not think we have anything more to discuss.

We agree again.

The point remains that morality, because it is grounded in the essential nature of a good God, also has an essential nature.

Another instance of presupposing the answer to the very question we’re trying to analyze.

This is not a presupposition but a thesis tested by logic and theology.

And why not give us your take on the Euthyphro dilemma while you’re at it. It’s so fun to watch.

I don’t feel like rehearsing this anymore than I do the arguments for the existence of God, so here’s Bill Craig’s take.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6063
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6087

What? I have not the faintest idea what you’re on about here, but it sounds vaguely insulting.

Almost as vaguely insulting as a “dilettantish,” “pretty little piece of hyperbolization” (quoting from you earlier today)? Or “it’s so fun to watch” (quoting from below)?

You’re running very, very close to violating the discussion guidelines, especially with responses like this one here, and you very well may soon be “outta here,” just as you said.

The point remains that morality, because it is grounded in the essential nature of a good God, also has an essential nature.

Another instance of presupposing the answer to the very question we’re trying to analyze.

“Morality is grounded in the nature of God because it is grounded in the nature of God.”

Of course it’s circular. Good luck with that. And why not give us your take on the Euthyphro dilemma while you’re at it. It’s so fun to watch.

I’m outta here!

But this is a code limited in time, place, culture, willingness, etc. and it cannot, therefore. determine or convey what is actually good or bad.

But this is a failing only when you presuppose that there must exist such a thing as absolute good and bad; it’s a problem created by your own philosophy. Allow that good and bad exist only as relative concepts, and there is no philosophical problem at all, and no practical one either.

It’s not about whether or not they are effective.

It is very much about whether they are effective, or of any practical significance at all. If you put meta-ethics before ethics you have abandoned the rationale of doing ethics in the first place: determining how to live the good life. Knock yourself out with meta-ethics all you like, but unless you can connect back to ethics and to how your theories apply to us, the real people who are the subject of ethics to begin with, it is ultimately nothing more than an academic exercise and only so much word games.

Of course they APPEAR objective.

In all of your description that followed, you have described personal opinion and consensus of opinion and called it the appearance of objectiveness. Your extreme example of destroying the planet is poorly chosen to demonstrate objective law, since that is something that we all (well, not these guys) agree would be bad for everybody. That’s just self-preservation, selfish-genery at work, no reason to construe this as an appearance of transcendental law at work.

Objective laws is one possible speculation about the underlying mechanisms of such observed commonalities, but the observation of many dissimilarities and cultural differences destroys, at least in my view, the appearance of objectiveness underlying the phenomenon. Or stated differently, you would see transcendent objectiveness underlying morality only by counting all the hits and ignoring all the misses.

Consider public smoking, which has recently become moralized in some spheres of society, but was not an issue of moral reprehension in the past. Something changed with time, indicating the relative nature of the moralization process. Here’s one example from the Pinker article:

“In the West, we believe that in business and government, fairness should trump community and try to root out nepotism and cronyism. In other parts of the world this is incomprehensible — what heartless creep would favor a perfect stranger over his own brother?”

Here the moral spheres of the west and the east have drifted towards different positions, clearly indicating their relative nature. It is this sort of phenomenon that you have to explain somehow in your theory of objective morality, and I’m still waiting for you (or just someone) to do this.

Now onto Ruse

Why are you using the words of an atheistic philosopher of science to describe objective morality for your theistic philosophy? They appear to be completely different! I haven’t read Ruse, so I can’t comment on the statements that you have borrowed from him. From your rendering of it I would probably disagree with him on many points, but then I don’t know if you did him justice with your description. I certainly disagree that normative ethics would be a biological adaptation.

But again, it appears from your description that Ruse’s meaning of “objective” is not at all the same as your meaning. Again you are equivocating between different meanings of objective.

In your moral philosophy I think you made it clear that the nature of objectivity of moral laws, the theory that you are arguing for, is that they derive from a transcendent supernatural being. But none of your arguments for objectivity in this post use that definition. Instead you help yourself to an array of weaker definitions to make the case for “objectivity” – how does that help you argue for objectiveness as it is required by your philosophy?

As I predicted above, those who hold this view (the vast majority) must be ignorant or superficial.

What? I have not the faintest idea what you’re on about here, but it sounds vaguely insulting.

By this charge you admit that morality does, in fact, appear to be objective but that you can explain that away if properly-read.

You can make things appear “objective” by not looking very hard and by glossing over the discrepancies, as I think you are doing. If you want to explain what is observed by objective mechanisms, you have to come up with a theory that explains not only the similarities but also the differences. “Objective” in the sense of innate and independent of human opinion by way of evolutionary mechanisms, is compatible with what we observe. The transcendental supernatural “objective” might also be, but you have given no account for how it explains the widespread differences.

You mean like altruism? I’d note that we also observe murder, rape, infanticide, slavery, dominance, etc.

Indeed we do: all the more commonalities between ourselves and other animals requiring a powerful theory to explain these. Thank you for making the point.

If one society determines an act to be right and another determines it to be wrong then , by relativism, it is both right and wrong. Tis is impossible. Therefore, the moral systems that render these judgments are actually unable to tell us whether the act is right or wrong, therefore, the moral system is not a moral system at all.

This is not an explanation or even an argument: all you show here is that you, again, presuppose the existence of absolute values and base your analysis of moral relativism upon that, unsurprisingly finding it to be contradictory or worthless. Like I said many posts ago, you’re assuming that which I am asking you to prove. Your reasoning becomes circular.

Ethics is older than Christianity

So is the transcendent source of good.

Care to back that up with any argument, analysis or evidence?

Then you admit again that your moral system has no grounding and that grounding is irrelevant?

Your binary reading appears to prevent you from appreciating the viability of anything that is not absolute or transcendental. That’s not my problem. The way I see it, our moral system is grounded well enough in society and biology to help us live decently in an immensely complex society. Already at the level of only a handful of individuals, some system of regulation (e.g. observance of rules and/or authority) appears to be necessary for successful group living. If tighter group living in itself increases the inclusive fitness of the species (by offering better protection, food sharing, etc), then evolution sees to it that such systems of regulation that contribute to the inclusive fitness of a species will evolve in tandem with its society.

Would moving on be right or wrong? Ought I move on?

Why are you asking me…check with your transcendental ought-maker.

Forgive my presumptuousness, but I can not think we have anything more to discuss.

Your last paragraph doesn’t say, Tony, look at the broader parts of my argument and view my comments in context. It says, “You haven’t shown circularity in these statements. If you show it to me and I see it, then I’ll admit it. Perhaps I’m blind and I need it shown to me very, very plainly.”

Like I said before, if you can’t concede a little point like this (that my taking up your challenge to show how your statements could be circular was not a result of my taking your comments out of context, but a result of heeding your words exactly as they were meant), then I have indeed lost hope with having a discussion with you.

Tony, I’m sorry. I don’t think the word “circular” is the correct term for these arguments, even if they are weak, and even if they are considered apart from their context.

This is not a point of personal character.

Taken out of context, as you say we ought to be considering them (because I did not point to the context at the key moment, which I do acknowledge), one of the statements lacks evidence or demonstration that its premises are true. I have already acknowledged both of those flaws ( and here).

Now, do you really want me to admit with you that this acknowledged flaw is equivalent to the flaw of circularity? It isn’t

And in the course of calling for admission of errors, will you acknowledge anything at all about the value of context? Let me remind you how this first arose. You wrote,

If you can’t admit to the circularity in this…

So to act morally is good because it is a reflection of the nature of a good God who defines goodness.

…

… then we have truly reached a point where discussion is useless.

Plainly you are referring back in time to a point in the discussion where you felt I had been unwilling to admit the circularity of the statement. Now, here I will acknowledge that the statement taken out of context is open to the charge of circularity. Note, however, that the statement begins with the word “so,” and that (as I have said) when you brought up the charge you were making reference to earlier context. Since you were making reference to earlier context, I thought it fair to assume you would be taking the context into account. If that was a misguided assumption, then I am guilty of that error and I acknowledge it.

Now let’s go back one occurrence earlier, when you wrote,

The second statement appears circular (to act morally is good because it is a reflection of the nature of a good God?). If that is your definition of theism alone being able to provide a basis for morality, why can’t I just say something like: “I base my moral system on the themes of great Literature. So, to act morally is good because it is a reflection of the nature of the themes of great Literature, which define goodness?”

Tony, if this was about throwing accusations around, I should have pointed out a lot earlier, right at this point, how you took that out of context. You took my one sentence, the end of an extended argument, quoted it, and then said “If that is your definition… ” Of course it wasn’t. It was part of it, and out of context it was a distorted part of it. This is what frankly irks me about this whole discussion. You’re trying to get me to admit that I mishandled something, when that something is the result of your out-of-context distortions.

I acknowledge, once and for all, that the statements out of context do not constitute adequate arguments. One of them, out of context, is open to a charge of circularity; the other is open to the charge that its premises are unsupported.

Will you please acknowledge that the statements were not intended to be taken out of context?

With regard to your list of questions it looks like I agree with everything you say Adonais has stated (with the possible exception of 1, which I’m not totally sure I understand). I have to say they read like a pretty innocuous list of statements.

For what seems like the umpteenth time it’s going to be said to you, I have to say that 1) atheism is not a moral system, and 2) that does not mean that atheists must have no moral system. (In fact, they pretty much have to get it from somewhere else. And they do.)

I’m not sure what you mean by “do I see the consequences?” Are you making a reactionary argument or something?

You continue to be disingenuous by claiming that I am taking your comments out of context.

Here is the other part of the original context of your challenge to me.

[I wrote, at the end of my comment]:
If you can’t admit to the circularity in this…

So to act morally is good because it is a reflection of the nature of a good God who defines goodness.

… and this…

1. God is the ground of all reality.
2. God has a moral character that is an essential aspect of his eternal character.
3. The ground of all reality has moral character as an essential aspect.
4. Therefore there is an essential aspect to morality.

… then we have truly reached a point where discussion is useless.
[Reply]

Tom Gilson replied on September 1st, 2008 11:38 am:

Tony,

You haven’t shown circularity in these statements. If you show it to me and I see it, then I’ll admit it. Perhaps I’m blind and I need it shown to me very, very plainly.

I haven’t touched a thing. It’s one two, right after another. Your claims that these are sub-summary arguments, or part of some other argument are irrelevant. You stepped out of whatever broader discussion we were having, put your pride on the line, and challenged me to find my defined fault with your statements.

Your last paragraph doesn’t say, Tony, look at the broader parts of my argument and view my comments in context. It says, “You haven’t shown circularity in these statements. If you show it to me and I see it, then I’ll admit it. Perhaps I’m blind and I need it shown to me very, very plainly.”

Like I said before, if you can’t concede a little point like this (that my taking up your challenge to show how your statements could be circular was not a result of my taking your comments out of context, but a result of heeding your words exactly as they were meant), then I have indeed lost hope with having a discussion with you.

At this point, I couldn’t seriously care less about their circularity, by the way.

In other words, are you truly willing to have a discussion where your words and my words mean something, or are you only interested in pontificating in a less rigorous way? Because I was hoping for the former, but if you won’t stand for my taking your words as, well, your words, then I’m not so keen on being scolded, ignored, and lectured-to without having a small hope of getting a word in edgewise.

By the way, I did have every intention of answering your ultimate question from which this little scuffle has arisen, which I’m sure will be mightily anticlimactic now, but as I said, I’d like to see if you can concede a point.

Could go either way, I think.

That four-point list of statements was an answer to a question, “how am I going to avoid circularity.” The question was asked in response to an earlier set of discussions. The context is larger than five sentences.

In spite of your claim, “Here’s the original context (again),” Tony, that is not the original context. It’s the original quote! The quote is not the context. And that’s all I’m going to say on that, because this is getting ridiculous.

I like a healthy, vigorous debate, but I also like to check that the game isn’t rigged.

I agree 100%. That’s why I have had no intention of taking your out-of-context statements as defining the game.

As to pride or humility, all I can do is say again that even my own part in this process has made me ill. I’m not happy about it. I don’t like hammering on anything in such a confrontational mode as this has been. I never have been happy doing that.

But I honestly never have thought your charges had any merit, and I still don’t. I have explained the reasons why that was so. I placed my explanation in a context, which you you have steadfastly refused to look at beyond just five sentences. Not only that, but you have studiously ignored half of my answer to your challenge.

Until you actually respond to the real context, and look at what I really said, as I have repeatedly reminded you this afternoon, I’m afraid I’ll have to keep hammering that point. Because you’re never going to convince me that context doesn’t count. If that’s rigging the game, then so be it.

You wrote:

Will you acknowledge that what I wrote, as meticulously explained now, was not circular in its original context?

Here’s the original context (again):

How am I going to avoid circularity? Here is how:

1. God is the ground of all reality.
2. God has a moral character that is an essential aspect of his eternal character.
3. The ground of all reality has moral character as an essential aspect.
4. Therefore there is an essential aspect to morality.

That’s not circular.

So I can’t admit that your challenge to me was taken out of context. How could I?

You wrote:

Where does it get us? Does it help us understand what I meant in the first place? No. Does it help us understand each other in any other way? No.

Actually, I do think it helps us understand one another, and it also resulted in you not using the argument because it was discovered to be fallacious. So it gets us a better argument.

But I’m pounding on this because of a broader issue. If you or I prove ourselves unwilling to either to accept rigorous challenges to our arguments or ever cede points, then we have established that discussion is futile. I like a healthy, vigorous debate, but I also like to check that the game isn’t rigged.

You wrote earlier in these comments of how pride can prevent people from knowing God. I have written earlier about what I see as an alarming trend in your discussions here, and I think that it is related to pride. In short, you appear to be sometimes immune or dismissive of criticism to your arguments. I think you have maybe become too prideful in your convictions and in your arguments, and I will challenge those examples I see because I think it makes for better arguments and better people.

It seems to me you have only wanted to prove a point, and to jump all over me when I wouldn’t acknowledge it.

I have to remind you that you raised the challenge, and framed it precisely. Once offered, my not accepting your challenge is tantamount to ceding your point. If I don’t do that, I’m complicit. (I agree that it’s kind of like being trapped on board a submarine that’s going down for the last time.)

But I would suggest that the approach I’m taking is a lot more worthwhile than the one you’re taking. That’s because you’re hammering on a technicality, and I’m hammering on trying to understand each other in context.

This sounds as if I’m the only showing pride and that you have been nothing but a picture of humility. I have to remind you that you made the challenged me to find circularity, and that you have accused me of acting in bad faith, taking your comments out of context, and scoring technical points instead of seeking understanding. I also have had several recent discussions with you where you have dismissed or ignored my valid arguments. In other words, my combativeness has, in fact, come about as a result of a greater context.

Your charges of my arguing in a circular fashion: did they help advance any understanding? Did they help you or me think through what I originally meant when I said what I said? Did you even want to understand what I said?

I think my contesting your statements helped clarify an earlier argument that I thought was being used to base a broader one. When you said you were ready to move on, I thought you meant with all uncontested conclusions being determined. Did you ever consider that I might be arguing for more than what I considered a technicality?

I showed you what you asked for. I can only say that it appears that either you cannot see (when I assure you others can) it, or you won’t admit it.

I’m obviously not everyone, nor am I unbiased, but I will tell you that I can see why you think Tom is being circular but you are mistaken.
You committed for some reason to this claim of circularity before any of these syllogisms came up and your pugnacious attitude of late toward Tom hasn’t looked good to me.

1. God is the ground of all reality.
2. God has a moral character that is an essential aspect of his eternal character.
3. The ground of all reality has moral character as an essential aspect.
4. Therefore there is an essential aspect to morality.

The conclusion certainly follows from the premises, but that’s not circularity, that’s validity.

I thought it worth pointing that out. I’m going back to technicalities in doing so; but then, that’s where you’ve been in this relentless accusation that I’ve been circular, without any regard for the original contexts of the so-called circular statements.

So let me ask you this: just now I stated why, in technical terms, this statement devoid of context escapes your charge of circularity. Suppose I’m right (and I think I am). Where does it get us? Does it help us understand what I meant in the first place? No. Does it help us understand each other in any other way? No.

Your charges of my arguing in a circular fashion: did they help advance any understanding? Did they help you or me think through what I originally meant when I said what I said? Did you even want to understand what I said?

It seems to me you have only wanted to prove a point, and to jump all over me when I wouldn’t acknowledge it. I’m doing the same back to you now, in my own defense, and quite frankly it makes me ill, because it’s not helping us understand each other any better. But I would suggest that the approach I’m taking is a lot more worthwhile than the one you’re taking. That’s because you’re hammering on a technicality, and I’m hammering on trying to understand each other in context.

So now I’ll close off my part in this argument, unless your response gives me good reason to continue with it.

Will you acknowledge that what I wrote, as I have now meticulously explained, was not circular in its original context? Or will you continue to act as if context is irrelevant?

Now you’re accusing me of acting in bad faith.

Here is your exact challenge:

How am I going to avoid circularity? Here is how:

1. God is the ground of all reality.
2. God has a moral character that is an essential aspect of his eternal character.
3. The ground of all reality has moral character as an essential aspect.
4. Therefore there is an essential aspect to morality.

That’s not circular.

Tom, I defy you to tell me how I took that challenge out of context. And you accuse me of acting in bad faith?

What I wrote, when I wrote it, was not circular.

That’s an absurd statement. Either what you write is circular, or it is not.

What you quoted out of context is not relevant to the discussion.

I have striven to be meticulous in quoting your arguments and pointing out what I think are flaws in the reasoning quoted. Instead of responding to the challenge by simply admitting the merit in the challenge and modifying your statement (continuing the discussion), you dug in. You don’t have to stay there, but that’s where you are.