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

"You can't criticize God" Continued

#31OrangeWizardPosted 1/18/2013 1:57:43 PM
From: Lord_Ichmael | #023
God is perfect, therefore he can do no wrong; nothing he does is wrong because he's perfect. That's circular.


This car is red. Therefore, this car is not blue, because it's red.

It's called a tautology. There's nothing inherently wrong with that.


The Bible fails to prove WHY that is true.


So?

From: JonWood007 | #024
WE could be wrong? I've presented a strong case for why your viewpoint is wrong, and you keep holding onto that possibility that I COULD be wrong?


Yeah.

What makes your moral standard "correct"? What makes it true?

Hitler had a moral standard too. Who's to say that his was "wrong" and that yours was "right"?

Everybody has a moral standard. Thieves, rapists, serial killers... What makes their moral standards any better or worse than that of a lawyer, or a judge, or a doctor?

This is the inherent problem with subjective moral standards. They don't mean anything. There is no way to objectively measure them. Even if you did manage to come up with some "pain to pleasure" index, that's just something that's subjectively chosen to measure a morality system by, and who says that a "pain to pleasure" index is the right way to measure morality?

See?

No, you won't see. You'll never see, because your eyes are clouded by hate.

I wish you could see, but I can't overcome your personal problems that keep you from thinking logically.

Burden of proof is on you to demonstrate your assertions.


But I'm not the one asserting that God is perfect.
You are, by assuming that the God of the Bible exists in the first place.

inb4shovingassumptionsdownyourthroat

Edit: Look at all these contradictions!

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html


Oh wow, you typed "bible contradictions" into Google, and clicked on the first link.
I'm definitely going to spend hours worth of effort refuting something that took you ten seconds to do.
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face
#32Faust_8Posted 1/18/2013 2:07:37 PM
OW is going to see this to 500 again.

It's easy if you ignore most of what people say, claim they're assuming things they aren't, shift the burden of proof, and just shout NO at whatever you want.

Everyone...just let this die. I thought mine was finished but then it got completely restarted by one or two individuals which got OW ramped up again to repeat what he'd been saying all along. And this is literally on the same track as before. The concepts and logic in this thread are the exact same ones as in mine, we're not adding anything new anymore. Everybody is just putting their two cents in a cup filled to the brim with pennies.

Just let this die.
---
You are the universe
Expressing itself as a human, for a little while
#33OrangeWizardPosted 1/18/2013 2:24:21 PM(edited)
From: Lord_Ichmael | #027
So you admit that you have to accept it on blind faith.


How else do you propose to put God to the test and measure how moral he is?
By what standard are you measuring him?
What rubric?

Similarly, how do you test to see if someone is omnipotent or not? Do you have an infinite supply of weights at your disposal?

It is not blind faith. If someone lifts all of the heaviest things in the world, you now have evidence towards their omnipotence.
Could there be another planet with heavier things on it that he can't lift? Perhaps. But without an infinitely large array of weights, you can't test his omnipotence, and doing so would take an INFINITE amount of time, so such a person could NEVER finish the "test" and thus, his omnipotence would NEVER be proven.

How much weight is enough to prove one's omnipotence? 100,000 tons? 100,000^10x100,000? We could go on and on, but at a certain point, we just have to stop and say "Okay, we'll believe you're omnipotent".

Do you have absolute proof that someone is infinitely powerful? No.
Do you have reason to believe that he is? Yes.

Same with morality.

ATTN: Everyone. Daily reminder:

1) When you attempt to criticize the God of the Bible, you first have to assume, for the sake of argument, that he exists

2) When you assume that the God of the Bible exists, you agree to a definition of God, namely, that he is as the bible describes him.
2a) If you don't agree on this definition, then you're no longer talking about the God of the Bible.

3) When you agree to this definition of God, you accept that he is perfect, moral, just, omnipotent, omniscient, etc.

4) In order to validly disagree with any one of these aspects, you must first find an actual contradiction that calls this aspect into question.
4a) "I don't think this is moral" is not a valid contradiction, because nobody cares what you think.
4b) "I don't think this was a perfect act" is not a valid contradiction, because nobody cares what you think
4c) "I could have come up with a better solution" is not a valid contradiction, because this is impossible to verify
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face
#34OrangeWizardPosted 1/18/2013 2:23:00 PM
From: JonWood007 | #028
I expanded on this, but to quote myself again,
If your god's standard of moral perfection involves grotesque acts of torture and death without logical justification, I don't want to be right.


This isn't an answer.

From: Thuggernautz | #030
Well, not really. There's a near infinite amount of 'somethings' that could be found.


Well unless you do find any of those things, you have no basis with which to free yourself from this logical trap.

Because I can look on a map and see New York, and I can run the calculations and see that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. You can't do anything like that with God.

And if you do, you'll have PROVEN GOD, which is a victory in my camp either way.

We can't verify if God order the killings.


So sit back down.

As such, both cases are unverifiable and it remains a contradiction


No. Contradictions must be verified, otherwise it's an argument from ignorance.

From: Faust_8 | #032
Everyone...just let this die.


Yeah, this. I'm right. Logic is on my side. It's on lock. I've got this thing nailed down tight. This is my Magnum Opus right here, vacuum sealed and ready to be mass-produced to the awaiting public. Nobody has ever defeated this. Smarter men than you have tried.

You cannot win.

Ever.
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face
#35Lord_IchmaelPosted 1/18/2013 2:24:28 PM
Yeah, this. I'm right. Logical fallacies are on my side. It's on lock. I've got this thing nailed down tight. This is my Magnum Opus right here, vacuum sealed and ready to be mass-produced to the awaiting public. Nobody has ever defeated this. Smarter men than you have tried.


Now I'm done here.
#36Faust_8Posted 1/18/2013 2:27:27 PM
OrangeWizard posted...
From: Lord_Ichmael | #027
So you admit that you have to accept it on blind faith.


How else do you propose to put God to the test and measure how moral he is?
By what standard are you measuring him?
What rubric?

Similarly, how do you test to see if someone is omnipotent or not? Do you have an infinite supply of weights at your disposal?

It is not blind faith. If someone lifts all of the heaviest things in the world, you now have evidence towards their omnipotence.


Uh, no. You just know they have unfathomable strength. Is Superman omnipotent? If you saw him move the world, would you conclude he could do ANYTHING, like create a mountain just by snapping his fingers?

ATTN: Everyone. Daily reminder:

1) When you attempt to criticize the God of the Bible, you first have to assume, for the sake of argument, that he exists


I agree...kinda. If you're trying to say God is a liar, then yes, you're criticizing a being that really exists and saying he's not good. If you're criticizing the idea of God, however, you don't have to assume he actually exists, you're showing why the idea of God is self-contradictory. I don't have to assume Marvin the Martian exists to criticize his attempts at destroying the Earth as immoral. I don't have to assume that Xenu exists when I say he can't have been alive 12 trillion years ago.

The rest: lolno.

Dammit, I say let this die and here I am posting again. :/
---
You are the universe
Expressing itself as a human, for a little while
#37OrangeWizardPosted 1/18/2013 2:34:59 PM
From: Faust_8 | #036
Uh, no. You just know they have unfathomable strength.


You're confusing "proof" with "evidence" again.

Go back to where I explain "testing omnipotence" and read my post again. You clearly did not understand it, which seems to be a common thread with you.

If you saw him move the world, would you conclude he could do ANYTHING, like create a mountain just by snapping his fingers?


See? I already went over this. This is just evidence that you didn't read.


If you're criticizing the idea of God, however, you don't have to assume he actually exists, you're showing why the idea of God is self-contradictory.


That's all well and good.

But the "idea of God" didn't do anything you can find in the bible. The God of the Bible did that.

I don't have to assume Marvin the Martian exists to criticize his attempts at destroying the Earth as immoral. I don't have to assume that Xenu exists when I say he can't have been alive 12 trillion years ago.


Prove it.



lolno.


Great rebuttal.
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face
#38OrangeWizardPosted 1/18/2013 2:35:18 PM
From: Lord_Ichmael | #035
Now I'm done here.


Going so soon, after presenting a grand total of ZERO logical arguments or rebuttals, then hastily drawing a mustache on a portrait of me?

And nothing of value was lost.
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face
#39Lord_IchmaelPosted 1/18/2013 2:37:58 PM(edited)
OrangeWizard posted...
From: Lord_Ichmael | #035
Now I'm done here.


Going so soon, after presenting a grand total of ZERO logical arguments or rebuttals, then hastily drawing a mustache on a portrait of me?

And nothing of value was lost.


Just exasperated that you shrugged off/ignored everything I and everyone else said while continuing to cling to your pre-conceived illogical notions. Jon said it right, you're like a pigeon playing chess.
#40OrangeWizardPosted 1/18/2013 2:38:07 PM
From: Lord_Ichmael | #039
Just exasperated that you shrugged off/ignored everything I and everyone else said off


Such as?

As far as I know, the ratio between "arguments presented" / "arguments responded to" sits at a solid 1.
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face