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

"You can't criticize God" Continued

#321LunarAmbiencePosted 1/27/2013 7:56:47 PM(edited)
Not even going to try to argue. I just like to see that you have to break down every proposition into an opinion (propositions aren't the same as opinions, you uneducated fool), including those in which you assert a god (including a just one), in order to dodge actively opposing a particular proposition that is well-established in philosophical circles.

When the beliefs become unsupported, the unsupported is what the believers must assert across the board. It has a rosy "I don't know what I'm doing with my life because I can't state anything anymore" tinge to it.
---
The above is both true and false.
#322JonWood007Posted 1/27/2013 7:59:32 PM

You assume that God's reasoning is perfect by criticizing his actions.


That makes no sense.

Not my problem.


It is when you arrogantly assert my opinion doesn't matter (like yours does).
---
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
#323LunarAmbiencePosted 1/27/2013 8:12:13 PM
lol This guy isn't stating anything anymore. He must be non-Christian because any assessment we're taking are opinions, and so, by extension, must anyone else's. As a result, nobody can say anything on any matter.

OW is the uberagnostic. He's not a realist. He's not a solipsist. No claim can be asserted or measured because, as he's quick to state, it all doesn't matter.
---
The above is both true and false.
#324PhoroPosted 1/27/2013 8:13:17 PM
OrangeWizard posted...
From: LunarAmbience | #311
Killing infants for the crimes of their parents is unjust.


Says you.


And your opinion doesn't matter


If God's Objective Moral Standard ultimately produces a person who says reprehensible things like this, OW, then I take comfort in knowing that 1000 years from now your primitive myths will be nothing more than a passing footnote in third-grade history lessons.
---
You're killin' me, Smalls.
#325fudrickPosted 1/27/2013 8:15:21 PM
I haven't read the entire 800 post discussion, but OW does seem to be correct. If you're assuming, for the sake of discussion, that the god of the bible exists and the bible accurately describes his actions, then you are pretty much assuming that he's benevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient. What you really want to do is address the actions attributed to the god of the bible separately, and assess whether or not they seem, to us as humans, to be the actions of a benevolent, omnipotent, omniscient god.
---
Best FCs:
GH1: Decontrol | GH2: Jordan, Hangar 18 | GH80s: Because It's Midnite | GH3: One, Soothsayer | RB2: I Ain't Superstitious
#326LunarAmbiencePosted 1/27/2013 8:41:17 PM
From: fudrick | #325
I haven't read the entire 800 post discussion, but OW does seem to be correct. If you're assuming, for the sake of discussion, that the god of the bible exists and the bible accurately describes his actions, then you are pretty much assuming that he's benevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient. What you really want to do is address the actions attributed to the god of the bible separately, and assess whether or not they seem, to us as humans, to be the actions of a benevolent, omnipotent, omniscient god.

Assuming a character does not mean assuming every single proposed characteristic. I know you haven't read them, but for two whole topics, we've been addressing the discordance between the description of God and the description of God's actions. I've established and supported this argument quite objectively by constructing many hypothetical alternative deities which match the actions of a benevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient god better than the god of the Holy Bible. The response has been to make an exception for the Judeochristian god because it has a bigger picture, for which I rebutted by stating that a Judeochristian god that must be inclusive of such imperfect actions must have a less perfect picture than one which isn't. From there, it's been "that's your opinion."
---
The above is both true and false.
#327fudrickPosted 1/27/2013 8:46:43 PM
LunarAmbience posted...
Assuming a character does not mean assuming every single proposed characteristic.


I'm not really sure how it doesn't

LunarAmbience posted...
I know you haven't read them, but for two whole topics, we've been addressing the discordance between the description of God and the description of God's actions. I've established and supported this argument quite objectively by constructing many hypothetical alternative deities which match the actions of a benevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient god better than the god of the Holy Bible.


According to what metric, though?

LunarAmbience posted...
The response has been to make an exception for the Judeochristian god because it has a bigger picture, for which I rebutted by stating that a Judeochristian god that must be inclusive of such imperfect actions must have a less perfect picture than one which isn't. From there, it's been "that's your opinion."


That's why I'm saying that the concept of the judeochristian god should be left out of this entirely if you want to succeed at what you're attempting to do. By assessing the actions individually, there's no way anyone can really ascribe characteristics to the being which hypothetically took these actions as you're not discussing an already defined god which took these specific actions, you're just talking about the actions themselves.
---
Best FCs:
GH1: Decontrol | GH2: Jordan, Hangar 18 | GH80s: Because It's Midnite | GH3: One, Soothsayer | RB2: I Ain't Superstitious
#328LunarAmbiencePosted 1/27/2013 9:08:56 PM
From: fudrick | #327
I'm not really sure how it doesn't

I don't see how it does. In fact, this is one claim that has only been supported by the earnestness of those attempting to support it. Maybe it's because I find it easier to draw characterization from actions, rather than a priori giving these characterizations to a proposed character. If we both read a book about a knight who is described as being "perfectly brave" and yet acts cowardly, am I to assume you'd go with the description in spite of the described actions?

According to what metric, though?

The actions are relative to one another, no metric is needed.

That's why I'm saying that the concept of the judeochristian god should be left out of this entirely if you want to succeed at what you're attempting to do. By assessing the actions individually, there's no way anyone can really ascribe characteristics to the being which hypothetically took these actions as you're not discussing an already defined god which took these specific actions, you're just talking about the actions themselves.

Our focus is the Judeochristian god only. And we've discussed 1) the definition; 2) how a deity would exemplify this definition (we failed to conclude that J/C god would come close to this definition, yet somehow "that's my opinion") 3) and this is the important point: how the J/C god fails to exemplify this definition compared with other hypothetical deities because, in light of these alternative deities, the J/C god possesses a description which is discordant with its actions.

It's that simple. It's not a complication in my argument that the J/C god is described as being perfect while also doing imperfect things. That is possessed by those who put forth the J/C god.
---
The above is both true and false.
#329hunter_gohanPosted 1/27/2013 9:18:12 PM
Systemafunk posted...
Good. Glad you can admit it part of the time at least. Although you skipped a few steps in your little "summary" there.


Finally admit? When have I denied a tautology is a tautology? If I was Superman, then I'd be Superman. That doesn't make me Superman.

As I have said before, I have no problem at all with you not concluding that it would be. No problem. But you keep pretending I haven't.


Yet we've discussed this moral issue in multiple threads now. Every single time I have been referring to YHWH. I have been using his alleged actions as examples. You even called me an angstheist for not capitalizing God once. That's generally not something you do when you're talking about some hypothetical god. This just seems to me to be backpedaling. I have never been talking about a hypothetical perfect being. I've always been talking about a specific hypothetical being called YHWH whose alleged actions we can actually look at and see if he meets those qualifications. Which he fails at miserably.

This is a problem. The only reason I'm NOT using a recorded book at all is to avoid the whole "claims to be God" part of the debate in the first place. That way we can focus on the necessary assumption that we are ACTUALLY talking about the real creator God. It is essential that we are actually referring to the same thing. If you know I'm not trying to argue specifically for the Bible, and just God in general, then you are arguing a strawman. So don't.


The problem is you define "god" as basically the Christian God without actually naming it. Odin was a creator god. He was not perfect, nor all powerful, nor omniscient. Absolutely nothing about being a creator god necessitate those qualities.

The reason you don't like not judging based off a book like the Bible is because you don't like the implications of the perfectly valid argument about said hypothetical being.


If I was Superman, then I'd be Superman. Would you like to have a discussion about me being a hypothetical Superman without pointing out that I'm human, can't leap tall buildings in a single bound, isn't faster than a speeding bullet, nor more powerful than a locomotive?

I don't even have to look at that link to bet it it's the one about Lawrence Krauss. Now, I'll just ignore the fact that the conclusion winds up being that what we think of as "nothing" really isn't nothing at all, but even if it were it should be obvious that this has absolutely nothing to do with the argument.


It is entirely pertinent to your argument. Your entire argument seems to be based on "creator god therefore, perfect, all-powerful, all-knowing." Absolutely nothing save your a priori beliefs says this must be true.

The point is simply that IF a creator God exists, then said being is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient.

And here's your problem. This is not true at all. It is based solely on your a priori belief. If it is possible for the universe to be created from "nothing" by no one, why in the blue hell would someone who created one have to be omnipotent and omniscient.?
---
The food that stands on his [Odin's] table he gives to two wolves of his called Geri and Freki. He himself needs no food; wine is for him both drink and meat.
#330LunarAmbiencePosted 1/27/2013 9:22:24 PM
From: hunter_gohan | #329
The point is simply that IF a creator God exists, then said being is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient.

Yeah, I don't see how that follows necessarily, either.
---
The above is both true and false.