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

"You can't criticize God" Continued

#41Lord_IchmaelPosted 1/18/2013 2:40:13 PM
You just go "You can't criticize God because he's perfect, you just have to accept that!" over and over and over while failing to justify it. Just because a source says something doesn't mean it's true, especially when it says other things that cast significant doubt on that claim.
#42Lord_IchmaelPosted 1/18/2013 2:44:47 PM
And yes, it was easy to come up with those contradictions quickly. The only way to "disprove" them is to jump to wild, made-up rationalizations like "That's not REALLY what it means!" and so forth.
#43OrangeWizardPosted 1/18/2013 2:45:12 PM
From: Lord_Ichmael | #041
You just go "You can't criticize God because he's perfect, you just have to accept that!" over and over and over while failing to justify it.


Do I need to justify it? I thought the logic was pretty clear

If X is perfect, then X is perfect.

If X = Y, then X = Y.

Do I need to justify that? What part of that do you disagree with?

Just because a source says something doesn't mean it's true


Correct.

However, Believing statement X, a priori, from source Y, and refusing to believe statement Z, a priori, from source Y is cherry-picking, and illogical. You cannot just pick and choose what to believe.
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face
#44OrangeWizardPosted 1/18/2013 2:47:10 PM(edited)
Oh, and here's the original topic, for easy reference

Gaze upon the mighty warriors that fell in battle, trying to conquer this very obstacle.
Gaze upon your defeated betters, oh ye mighty, and despair.

----------
http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/263-religion/63303722
----------


---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face
#45ThuggernautzPosted 1/18/2013 2:58:49 PM(edited)
OrangeWizard posted...
Well unless you do find any of those things, you have no basis with which to free yourself from this logical trap.


This equally applies to the claims of God's attributes, and every claim of Jesus' actions.

OrangeWizard posted...

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


Ironically, to assume 'God is perfect' or 'God is omnipotent' or 'God is omniscient' are all arguments from ignorance of the highest order. I can easily verify that I, and many others, would describe some of God's actions as written in the Bible as atrocities. All you are left with is the three of the largest arguments from ignorance that could be conceived.
#46OrangeWizardPosted 1/18/2013 2:58:35 PM
From: Thuggernautz | #045
This equally applies to the claims of God's attributes, and every claim of Jesus' actions.


No it doesn't, because you're assuming those things to be true already.
You need to independently verify them, and only then can you free yourself from the source of the bible.

Ironically, 'God is perfect' or 'God is omnipotent' or 'God is omniscient' are all arguments from ignorance of the highest order


Reading X from source Y, and then saying X is not an argument from ignorance. You don't know what the term even means, clearly.

I can easily verify that I, and many others, would describe some of God's actions as written in the Bible as atrocities


Good. Now prove that your subjective systems of morality actually matter.
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face
#47ThuggernautzPosted 1/18/2013 3:16:07 PM
OrangeWizard posted...

No it doesn't, because you're assuming those things to be true already.
You need to independently verify them, and only then can you free yourself from the source of the bible.


No, I'm not. That's my point. Being that neither case can be verified, I assume nothing. However, as has already been argued to you before, you do not need to assume that something really exists in order to analyze it. Such is the case with fictional characters, and mythical/unverified historical claims. And you can't demonstrate that God is a real being.


Reading X from source Y, and then saying X is not an argument from ignorance. You don't know what the term even means, clearly.


No, but assuming X as correct is; you don't have any possible way to demonstrate X as true and yet you assume it a priori. There's only one reason to do so, and it's an argument from ignorance.


Good. Now prove that your subjective systems of morality actually matter.


I could as easily ask the same of your God's. No doubt you'll just invoke another unprovable claim of the afterlife.
#48OrangeWizardPosted 1/18/2013 3:23:57 PM
From: Thuggernautz | #047
No, I'm not.


Then you must not be criticizing the God of the Bible, which is what this topic is about, so why are you even here?

I assume nothing.


Not even that God exists?
Then how are you going to criticize him?

you do not need to assume that something really exists in order to analyze it.


I've never seen proof of this.

No, but assuming X as correct is;


Even that is not an argument from ignorance.
You really don't know what the term means.

I could as easily ask the same of your God's. No doubt you'll just invoke another unprovable claim of the afterlife.


I've never spoken of the afterlife in any of these three topics, so stop projecting.

But my answer is "Because he created morality"
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face
#49ThuggernautzPosted 1/18/2013 3:58:28 PM(edited)
I feel like I'm talking at a wall, and am going to go drink many beers so this will be the last post before the weekend.

I'm going to try to be concise in my viewpoint. We have source X which has claims Y and Z. From the outset, it would appear that both Y and Z are contradicting. However, Z is an action whilst Y is an attribute. If you assume Y as true, it means literally any action inherits the attribute Y. But no-one does this in reality. In reality we judge a person's properties or attributes by their actions. In fact, that's even a point somewhere else in source X; judge a person by their fruits. It's a case of, in reality, Z dictates what Y is; not the other way around.

Now, it must finally be noted that there is absolutely no reason to accept Y or Z as being true. Neither are demonstrable, neither can be validly shown to be true. As such, the problem of contradiction as described above doesn't disappear, it's simply pointless to speculate about as the whole thing is invalid. Which is where my current position is. Both claims are devoid of merit, and I see no reason to continue trying to get you to reason within reality rather than absurdity.

Have a good weekend!
#50Faust_8Posted 1/18/2013 4:10:33 PM
Me: 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.

OW: Prove it.


This sums up why it's useless talking to you. And the fact you won't understand why is the nail in the coffin.

And that's not even mentioning how you split one post of mine and responded to it as if it was two. As in, I wrote two sentences. Sentence A and sentence B. You isolated A and talked about it. Then you isolated B and talked about it...chiding me for not learning about what you said about sentence A.

Here's a hint, genius: there was no time interval on my end from those two rebuttals of yours. It was not the case that I said one, you rebutted, and you said the other. I SAID BOTH AND YOU SPLIT THEM UP AT THE SAME TIME.

The only reason I stooped to a "lolno" response is because we literally had 500 posts where people argued against the very thing you just said. You simply repeated it as if there was no answer.

Your "methods" of arguing are the most backwards and dishonest ones I've ever seen. At least with YEC creationists or whatever, you know they're just duped. You seem to be making a conscious effort at being underhanded. You look for every chance to make yourself appear smart, so you can win the argument with that instead of actually saying anything of value. You employ smoke screens and nothing more.

That's why my topic went to 500 and that's why I'm not going to have part in this one anymore.
---
You are the universe
Expressing itself as a human, for a little while