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

"You can't criticize God" Continued

#361OrangeWizardPosted 1/29/2013 12:31:47 AM
From: LunarAmbience | #360
Yes, it has.


Then please direct me to the post number
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face
#362LunarAmbiencePosted 1/29/2013 1:06:35 AM
From: OrangeWizard | #361
Then please direct me to the post number

Any of the numbered posts with the name "LunarAmbience" would suffice.

I'm not here for circles. Change your act or fold up the tent.
---
The above is both true and false.
#363PhoroPosted 1/29/2013 3:32:43 AM
OrangeWizard posted...
From: Phoro | #358
Then why are you asking for demonstratable proof of a contradiction about a God you haven't demonstratably proven to exist in the first place?


If someone is attempting to criticize God, they already assume, for the sake of argument, that he exists.
So if that someone is already assuming that he exists, why should we go backwards and talk about his existence?


I'll be specific.
Off-topic, yet related: you (and I'm being generous here) *heavily implied* that something needs to be demonstratably proven as a fact before you'll buy into it. So how does someone with that line of thought arrive at God's existence as something probable, if not certain?
Or are you not certain?
And if you aren't 100% certain of his existence, why bother at all? You've made it perfectly clear here that anything below 100% certainty isn't worth your time.
---
You're killin' me, Smalls.
#364Suibom(Topic Creator)Posted 1/29/2013 3:53:52 AM
Phoro, my response to that is this:

Are we discussing the characteristics of the Biblical God?

Yes? Okay, then we're assuming for discussions sake that He exists.

Otherwise, our discussion won't be very productive if one of us is explaining the characteristics of said God (as we agreed to do... hence why we're having the discussion in the first place), and one of us is wanting to move the discussion onto another topic (which we didnt agree to do, as that's a different subject.)

If you start out criticizing said God, and then move the discussion backwards, usually with lasthero's drug of choice when he can't win an argument, with, "Well, I don't believe any of this anyways.", then you're no longer discussing what we decided to discuss.

You're wanting to discuss the existence of God.

We're discussing the characteristics of God, as stated in the Bible.

If you wish to enter that discussion, then for discussions sake, you're assuming that that God exists.
---
"Indeed these are the mere edges of His ways, and how small a whisper we hear of Him!
But the thunder of His power who can understand." - Job 24:14
#365PhoroPosted 1/29/2013 4:38:49 AM
A. I specified that my questions were off-topic, yet relative.

B. If we're assuming that the God of the Bible exists for the sake of an argument about criticizing a God who can't be criticized because to assume he exists means he is necessarily ABOVE criticism... then this topic was dead in the water as soon as it began. I'd also posit that it was a dirty trick.

C. Still waiting for a proper response. I see no reason why my queries should be off-limits in a topic where a theist claims he needs 100% certainty for anything before it's worth a look.
---
You're killin' me, Smalls.
#366ThuggernautzPosted 1/29/2013 8:17:44 AM
No, you can still criticize God. Unfortunately, you just have to fight stupidity with stupidity. If they wish to make a tautological definition for God, you just need to make another tautological being (equally valid) that claims God is lying. The ghost that never lies is the one I've been using, you can pick an infinite number of beings that you wish and give them absolute attributes. Such is the folly of such definitions.

Alternatively, you don't even need to use other examples in the Bible of God's actions to criticize him. You can simply point to the tautological definition which reduces all his actions to be meaningless and arbitrary (the most evil act you can think of would have to be morally good if done by God, for example) and criticize it that way.
#367OrangeWizardPosted 1/29/2013 8:43:39 AM
From: LunarAmbience | #362
Any of the numbered posts with the name "LunarAmbience" would suffice.


"Proof of my main point can be found in every post that I made"

I've always wondered this, how does your pants stay lit? Is it propane? Those are some clean-burning pants, I tell you hwhat.

From: Phoro | #363
you (and I'm being generous here) *heavily implied* that something needs to be demonstratably proven as a fact before you'll buy into it.


No I didn't.

I said that unless you can demonstrate a contradiction, then it's not actually a contradiction.

When you're dealing with a premise like "God is moral", you need something that completely 100% contradicts his morality, because otherwise it can be justified away with "Your morality is wrong". Saying "I think that X is bad" does not mean you've found a God-breaking contradiction. You have to do better than that, and that "better" is something objective.
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face
#368OrangeWizardPosted 1/29/2013 8:46:16 AM
From: Thuggernautz | #366
The ghost that never lies is the one I've been using,


Oh, I've been ignoring that, because I'm not assuming that he exists, unlike what you're assuming with God.
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face
#369ThuggernautzPosted 1/29/2013 9:15:25 AM(edited)
OrangeWizard posted...
From: Thuggernautz | #366
The ghost that never lies is the one I've been using,


Oh, I've been ignoring that, because I'm not assuming that he exists, unlike what you're assuming with God.


No, I'm not assuming God exists in this case; I'm not judging his actions in the Bible. I'm simply using another tautologically defined, equally valid being to elucidate the obvious problem with defining things like that in order to criticize the definition of God (and by extension any actions which result from said definition).

Thuggernautz posted...
Alternatively, you don't even need to use other examples in the Bible of God's actions to criticize him. You can simply point to the tautological definition which reduces all his actions to be meaningless and arbitrary (the most evil act you can think of would have to be morally good if done by God, for example) and criticize it that way.
#370OrangeWizardPosted 1/29/2013 9:40:58 AM
From: Thuggernautz | #369
. I'm simply using another tautologically defined, equally valid being to elucidate the obvious problem with defining things like that in order to criticize the definition of God (and by extension any actions which result from said definition).


That's nice.

I still don't assume that he exists, though, so I still don't see what effect your "argument" is supposed to be having on me.

Sure you can bring up an unbreakable shield to my unstoppable lance, but then all we get is a contradiction that may or may not ever be resolved.

If you're using it to say "absolutes can't exist!" then you're misguided.

You haven't proven anything.

You can simply point to the tautological definition which reduces all his actions to be meaningless and arbitrary (the most evil act you can think of would have to be morally good if done by God, for example) and criticize it that way.


Why does nobody ever listen to me when I say that your opinions don't matter?
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face