Keith Devens .com

Some of us world argue the Christian worldview is right up there in midair with the rest of humanity's worldviews. It being possibly fictitious and not provable or falsifiable.

The naturalistic fallacy presupposes that there is some external standard of morality that supersedes nature

No, it doesn't. Not accepting instinct as a standard of morality does not imply that you must accept an external standard of morality.

if our nature is a product of evolution and there is no God, then nature's all we got.

Replace "our nature" with "instinct", and it might be a little clearer. While we have natural instincts, the concept that we are "all natural", and the concept that we are not slaves to our instincts are not mutually exclusive. We can ignore our instincts whilst still actiing perfectly naturally and without relying on an external source of morality.

By using two different concepts and labelling them both as "nature", you are confusing the issue.

The problem is, for an atheist, there simply is no ought possible. Obligation can only come from authority, and, without God, there is no standard of authority.

Of course there is. Society is one such example.

it's impossible to justify why that would supersede any of our natural inclinations that contradict the social authority, or why the social authority has any authority at all -- hence the starting in thin air.

Society has authority because people accept it as an authority. People accept it as an authority because they are taught that as children, and, I suspect, because there's evolutionary pressure to do what your elders tell you to.

Only upon the Christian worldview can we correctly separate ought from is.

You might want to be more careful with your language in future, as stating, in essence, that only Christians are capable of thinking clearly comes across as being extremely arrogant and condescending to non-Christians, IMHO.

While I'm inclined to accept that without God there is no ought -- i.e., unless an authority prescribes an action it merely is, and that without God there is no authority that isn't arbitrary -- it doesn't follow that because we need an authority from which to derive ought that there exists an authority from which to derive it. In other words, the same reliance on logic that leads one to accept that the concept of should requires an authority might also lead one to believe that there is no basis upon which such an authority can be reasonably presumed.

I don't know how one arrives at a stable morality, but it doesn't have to be through the introduction of magic.

While I won't get to respond in detail for a few days most likely, I wanted to respond to this:

> Only upon the Christian worldview can we correctly separate ought from is.

You might want to be more careful with your language in future, as stating, in essence, that only Christians are capable of thinking clearly comes across as being extremely arrogant and condescending to non-Christians, IMHO.

I was careful with my language. I didn't say that non-Christians can't think clearly. I said that only the Christian worldview can provide the preconditions necessary for rational thought. To the extent that non-Christians think clearly they, without admitting it, borrow from the Christian worldview.

The reason non-Christians can think rationally, as well as posit the existence of truth, good and evil, the uniformity of nature, the inductive principle, logic, math, and so on, is only because their worldview is false and the Christian worldview is true.

"The reason non-Christians can think rationally, as well as posit the existence of truth, good and evil, the uniformity of nature, the inductive principle, logic, math, and so on, is only because their worldview is false and the Christian worldview is true."

While I agree that it may be impossible to derive an ought without the use of an unquestionable authority, I do not understand why that authority must be Christian in nature. Or with what premise you've derived the argument that other views are false.

It would require less burden to prove rational thought without christianity than strictly with. For instance, Aristotle (who existed before Christianity) made rational observations that Christian institutions would admire, and hold true for centuries.

You present reasonable argument. But it only holds true when in reference to atheism. No evidence exists to suggest a Christian God more probable than a Hindu God. Or one of the Gods Aristotle used when deriving absolute morals in an inabsolute universe.

I do agree that people have an innate drive to separate right from wrong, and I do agree that this drive is God given.

I've spent far too many hours arguing with atheists who recognise that they need a morality, so they make up their own. When I point out that their morality has no absolute basis, they shrug and say, 'But I'm happy with it, and I don't believe in your god, so your morality is also without foundation. Live and let live. Peace.' As sorry as I feel for these people, I respect their point of view, and am puzzled as to how I might speak the truth in love to them. What would you say to them?