This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

"You can't criticize God" Continued

#281OrangeWizardPosted 1/23/2013 9:43:19 PM
Oh look, it's the "I declare myself the victor" move.

What was that about a pigeon and chess? Something about it seems familiar here...
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face
#282LunarAmbiencePosted 1/23/2013 9:53:24 PM
Hey, man. You want a rebuttal for these arguments? Go dig through the 16 pages we're up to now and copy and paste the arguments I provided the first one or two times you brought this garbage up and refute them. I'm not playing this game.
---
The above is both true and false.
#283OrangeWizardPosted 1/23/2013 9:59:20 PM
From: LunarAmbience | #282
Hey, man. You want a rebuttal for these arguments? Go dig through the 16 pages we're up to now and copy and paste the arguments I provided the first one or two times you brought this garbage up and refute them.


I have no reason to believe that these mystery rebuttals even exist
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face
#284LunarAmbiencePosted 1/23/2013 10:10:16 PM
Yeah, well everyone with half a brain and a clicking finger can see that it ain't such a big mystery after all.

Oh, and for future reference, you need to go balls deep into a freshman Logic course. "God is God" is a tautology. "A perfect being is a perfect being" is a tautology. "God is a perfect being" is a ****ing proposition. "This perfect being does imperfect things A, B, and C" is called a ****ing contradiction, NOT an argument you can solve by calling it a tautology.

****ing stupid.
---
The above is both true and false.
#285OrangeWizardPosted 1/23/2013 10:12:45 PM
From: LunarAmbience | #284
Yeah, well everyone with half a brain and a clicking finger can see that it ain't such a big mystery after all.


Oh I'm so sure.

Would anyone like to confirm this person's claim?

Oh, and for future reference, you need to go balls deep into a freshman Logic course


Says the person who just threw a tantrum and flipped over the board because he couldn't win.

Your mental breakdown was 6/10. I've seen better
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face
#286JonWood007Posted 1/23/2013 10:36:47 PM(edited)
I'm not talking about a court room. I'm talking about logic.

In the case of a courtroom, everyone knows that it's an imperfect system. Humans are imperfect, and sometimes, mistakes happen. Everyone realizes that they're only doing the best they can.

In the case of logic, if you're wrong, then you're wrong. No excuses.

The entire reason I brought up the "sentence to death" analogy was to show that "Even if your heart is in the right place, if you're wrong, you're wrong."


Again, if you want to change the claim of "God is immoral" to "Based upon my subjective human standards of morality, it is my opinion that God is immoral", then I have absolutely no problems with that. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Everyone has the right to be wrong.



So how are you every going to be "reasonably certain" that your morality, or any human's morality, is right, or even relatively better?


That's fine.

Just don't claim that "The justice system came to X conclusion, therefore X is a logical fact".


I'm just gonna address these as a block. You know, I'm really getting sick of your attitude OW, your arrogance. Yes, my opinions are subjective, yes, my opinions are imperfect, yes, my opinions are open to change. But you. You go around with this sense of arrogance that everyone is wrong but you. You think your system is somehow better, immune to criticism because you act with the blind assumption (yes, it's blind) that you're following an "objective" moral system. I'm sick and tired of your arrogance and your smug sense of superiority. Heck, if you wanna know a major reason why I won't budge on my position, it's because of this. Because you interpret opinions that are not "objective", as arbitrary as your concept of objectivity is, as superior. You've said numerous times my opinions don't mean anything, and you know what? Screw you.

If your system is so much better than mine, prove it. Let's put hypotheticals aside. Prove your god exists. Prove your moral system comes from him. Prove he's perfect. And do all this without resorting to logical fallacies and what if statements. Put your money where your mouth is or shut the heck up.

Until you prove it, your system is no better than mine. You're human too. You're no better than I am. And your system of supposed moral objectivity? Gross misuses of logic and fallacies.

No more games. Prove your system is superior or this discussion is over. I never claimed my opinion is perfect, I never claimed it's absolute, I'm well aware of its limitations and it's flaws. But you for some reason seem to think you're somehow above that. Don't act like your crap doesn't stink.

Oh, and if you can't prove it, and I think you tried to pull this on me earlier since proving perfection is darn near impossible, that's your problem. You're making a claim to perfection, you prove it.


God himself has limits. He can't lie, he can't do anything immoral, and he can't take away our free will.
From this, we must conclude that the "genocide" was the best possible solution.


Either that or you're dealing with an inconsistency, or a contradiction.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 4 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HD | W7 | 1366x768
#287LunarAmbiencePosted 1/23/2013 10:39:09 PM
He thinks his propositions are tautology.

Can't argue with someone this impeded.
---
The above is both true and false.
#288JonWood007Posted 1/23/2013 10:51:25 PM(edited)
I honestly think that he relies on a so called objective moral system because his little mind overloads at the thought of morality not coming from an authority figure. He comes off to me as a very morally immature individual. He's at the conventional stage of kohlberg's stages of morality, I'm post conventional. He doesn't seem like he can even understand where a postconventional person is coming from.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development

Reading this, I think stage 4 best describes OW. Blind conformity to an external moral code.

My own reasoning skills are closer to stage 5-6 I think. As mentioned, stage 6 is a tricky stage to operate consistently, and depending on the situation, I probably switch between the two.I recognize morals are conventions and not absolute, and I also believe in disobeying ones that seem immoral to me. I'd think a truly perfect being would respect me for that, if anything. After all, God by definition should be superior to me morally, not inferior...I kinda feel like I'm selling myself short by dumbing myself down and not thinking for myself, which seems to be what OW expects.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 4 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HD | W7 | 1366x768
#289LunarAmbiencePosted 1/23/2013 10:47:48 PM
From: JonWood007 | #286
God himself has limits. He can't lie, he can't do anything immoral, and he can't take away our free will.
From this, we must conclude that the "genocide" was the best possible solution.

Either that or you're dealing with an inconsistency, or a contradiction.


He said this after I proposed that there were an infinite number of solutions available. If I tell you to count up from 1, how many numbers will you wind up counting? An infinite number. If I tell you to count up from 1, but skip the number 5 and carry on, how many numbers will you wind up counting? Why, an infinite number. Look at that.

From: JonWood007 | #288
I honestly think that he relies on a so called objective moral system because his little mind overloads at the thought of morality not coming from an authority figure. He comes off to me as a very morally immature individual. He's at the conventional stage of kohlberg's stages of morality, I'm post conventional. He doesn't seem like he can even understand where a postconventional person is coming from.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development


Inashmuch as he selects the God he wishes to believe in, he also selects the morality he'd like to have.
---
The above is both true and false.
#290JonWood007Posted 1/23/2013 10:52:46 PM
^^Either that or he was indoctrinated his whole life, or at least a good chunk of it.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 4 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HD | W7 | 1366x768