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

"You can't criticize God" Continued

#381ThuggernautzPosted 1/30/2013 12:03:37 PM
OrangeWizard posted...

Can you prove it? Then it's a fact. If not, then it's an opinion. So you answer me, is it your opinion that these aren't opinions? If not, then prove it.


This is exactly why your objection that we don't have the required evidence to contradict absolute unproven morality falls completely flat on its face. So, thanks for being a hypocrite, I guess.

Also, again:

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.

and

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 God through faulty definition (and by extension any actions which result from said definition).
#382OrangeWizardPosted 1/30/2013 12:10:40 PM
From: Thuggernautz | #381
This is exactly why your objection that we don't have the required evidence to contradict absolute unproven morality falls completely flat on its face.


We're already past the "unproven morality" point. We don't have to shift the conversation into reverse and go back to that.

We passed it the moment we decided to assume that the God of the bible exists. When we did that we took God's attributes and brought them on-board. This included objective morality.

We are not going to turn this bus around and kick all these attributes off, just because you don't like where we're all going. It's not going to happen.

So if you're talking about the God of the bible, then you're talking about the God with objective morality.
If you're not talking about the God with objective morality, then you're not talking about the God of the bible.

Deal with it.

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.


You can call it meaningless and arbitrary, if you want. That's just, like, your opinion, man.

No, I'm not assuming God exists in this case


Oh, then who are you criticizing? Nobody? Then why are you here?
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face
#383JonWood007Posted 1/30/2013 5:33:11 PM
New nonstampcollector video that I think is relevant. yay!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MFmC6BD1B4
---
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
#384OrangeWizardPosted 1/30/2013 6:28:50 PM
Nobody cares what you think
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face
#385GBALoserPosted 1/30/2013 6:40:12 PM
And this topic CONTINUES....

*sigh*
---
Every once in a while I realize the human race may be worth saving. Of course, then I come back here, but still, those are good moments. -Readyman
#386OrangeWizardPosted 1/30/2013 6:44:27 PM
From: GBALoser | #385
And this topic CONTINUES....

*sigh*



If you guys were actually able to refute me, you should have done it by now.
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face
#387GBALoserPosted 1/30/2013 6:48:34 PM
At this point, I think they're being masochists
---
Every once in a while I realize the human race may be worth saving. Of course, then I come back here, but still, those are good moments. -Readyman
#388JonWood007Posted 1/30/2013 7:15:31 PM
OrangeWizard posted...
From: GBALoser | #385
And this topic CONTINUES....

*sigh*



If you guys were actually able to refute me, you should have done it by now.


We refuted you. Many times over. Your definitions involving God are not based on anything. They're blind assumptions. They contradict any rational concept of the words you use (like perfection).
---
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
#389GBALoserPosted 1/30/2013 7:17:29 PM
"OW": The single word uttered by everyone from the unified facedesk when you fully understand....
---
Every once in a while I realize the human race may be worth saving. Of course, then I come back here, but still, those are good moments. -Readyman
#390DrAlbertBanduraPosted 1/30/2013 7:30:54 PM(edited)
From: OrangeWizard | #379
Can you prove it? Then it's a fact. If not, then it's an opinion. So you answer me, is it your opinion that these aren't opinions? If not, then prove it.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statement_(logic)
They're true or false declarative statements. To state whether or not God is perfect is a proposition. Opinions are not derived simply from their provability, but also from the fact that, even given all of the evidence, conclusions may not be drawn.

But now I have to point out the fact you're shooting yourself in the foot. I do this by examining the implications of stating that we possess opinions rather than false statements. If the statement "God is imperfect" truly is an opinion, then so is "God is perfect." If "God is perfect" is an opinion, then "You can't criticize this God because he is perfect" becomes an opinion. If "God's actions become meaningless if you assert everything he does is perfect" is opinion, then you can't argue that God's actions are meaningful because that is also an opinion, which ironically means that everything God does is still arbitrary and meaningless.

So, I have to ask you... Did you just make it through two topics implying everything Christians have been saying about God's perfection is subjective and worthless, ultimately undermining everything they've ever put forth? If so, let me just say:
http://i.imgur.com/3b12k5A.gif

If not, I want to know what kinds of exceptions you're giving to Christians and why you're not giving them to both sides here.

From: OrangeWizard | #380
Wait, 328 isn't even directed at me. That was to Fudrick, so why should I address a post that was never addressed to me?
So is 336. What the heck, man?


Why do they need to be addressed to you for you to respond to them? I have to give LA credit. She summarizes the case quite well in both of these posts. If you don't want to respond to them, you're essentially ignoring the core of the argument, it seems. If I copy/pasted them to you, they'd be addressed to you then. Would you answer them after I did that, or can you make up some more excuses?

If you think it's fair to ask me to reply to all these posts that didn't concern me, why don't you reply to all of my posts between 1-345?
Yeah, that's what I thought.


You complained when she told you to review all her posts to find her main point. Now that someone's come along and asked you to address two posts which summarize the main points succinctly, you still complain? Yeesh, you really want to jump ship here, don't you?

No.

As I said to phoro, you're taking a statement and trying to apply it to my entire worldview, when the statement is only meant to reside in the context of this debate.


I know of exactly zero debate rules which say that we can't question why your worldview is inconsistent with your reasoned defenses. What do you want? A whole new topic? I could make one. I'm sure we're all interested to know how a Christian is a Christian if the best he can do is defend for the ambiguity of God's perfection.

When I said "You need proof, being "close" doesn't matter", I mean it in the context of this debate, since that is what you guys need if you are ever to escape from this logical bear trap. You need proof. If you don't have it, you can't criticize the god of the bible.


Actually, an argument that contradicts itself is its own disproof. We don't need proof for anything if that occurs.
---
Two fish are in a tank. One turns to the other and says, "You man the guns. I'll drive."
http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/9504/bandura.jpg