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

"You can't criticize God" Continued

#51OrangeWizardPosted 1/18/2013 4:13:05 PM
From: Thuggernautz | #049
I feel like I'm talking at a wall,


That's what being wrong probably feels like.

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.


That's not my problem.

In reality we judge a person's properties or attributes by their actions.


That's fine.

But by attempting to criticize the God of the bible, you're already assuming God's attributes.

Now, it must finally be noted that there is absolutely no reason to accept Y or Z as being true


But by attempting to criticize the God of the bible, you're already accepting Y and Z as true.
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face
#52OrangeWizardPosted 1/18/2013 4:19:41 PM
From: Faust_8 | #050
This sums up why it's useless talking to you.


Because I ask people to prove their claims?

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.


I did no such thing.

I chided you for not learning about what I said in the post that you replied to with both sentence A and B, then chided you for both sentences.

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.


What do you mean "we"? Do you mean "Jon and some other guy"? Because you never said squat concerning this argument. You have no right to be included in that "we" statement.

You've never put up. You just sit on the sidelines and heckle as your jealousy exudes from you like body odor.
Eat less garlic, why don't you?

Your "methods" of arguing are the most backwards and dishonest ones I've ever seen.


Your "methods" of arguing are non-existent.
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face
#53LunarAmbiencePosted 1/18/2013 4:22:04 PM
From: OrangeWizard | #031
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 car is red because it absorbs all wavelengths except for those that would be perceived of as red. That is not a tautology.

God is God. Is a tautology.

God is perfect is not a tautology.

God is not perfect because only a limited being would choose to engage in genocide while there are other alternative actions which could be taken which lead to the same goal. There's a bit of logic for you.

The real god is the God of the Bible is a contradiction.
---
The above is both true and false.
#54Faust_8Posted 1/18/2013 4:28:26 PM
Because I ask people to prove their claims?

When you ask for proof, it either doesn't require proof, can't possibly be proven, or the burden of proof is on you instead. Like I said, you use it as a smoke screen.

What do you mean "we"? Do you mean "Jon and some other guy"? Because you never said squat concerning this argument. You have no right to be included in that "we" statement.

I see now why you say you have bad short term memory, it really shows.

Or you just love to move goal posts. You tried to insult me when I wasn't saying enough--by your "standards" of how much I should say--and when I posted dozens of times, now you just say I was just heckling.

I argued the exact same thing Jon and others were saying, I wasn't just taking potshots. I also argued from positions they didn't, like the difference between the rules of fiction and nonfiction. Go look it up.

More smoke screens. "I don't have to listen to you, you're not even posting enough in your own topic!" New version, "I don't have to listen to you, you just heckled!" Ad hominem, much?

When I insult you, it's not to discredit what you say (because I either already did that or your words damn yourself more than mine could) I just do it to relieve the frustration you give everyone who's had to listen to you say the same 3 things in an arrogant tone all day.
---
You are the universe
Expressing itself as a human, for a little while
#55OrangeWizardPosted 1/18/2013 4:35:46 PM
From: LunarAmbience | #053
The car is red because it absorbs all wavelengths except for those that would be perceived of as red. That is not a tautology.


In my tautology, I wasn't explaining WHY the car was red. I was explaining WHY it wasn't blue.

God is not perfect because only a limited being would choose to engage in genocide while there are other alternative actions which could be taken which lead to the same goal. There's a bit of logic for you.


No, that's a claim.
Prove it.

For instance, your faulty criteria in what determines a "limited being" does not account for the bigger picture, or what would bring about the greatest good.

For example, genocide would be better than forcibly brainwashing people like the Geth, overwriting them with new software. That would deny them free will, and that would be worse than killing them.

So would moving them to a pocket dimension, where they continued to live in their erroneous ways, because then, all the children that they could have would never become reconciled to God.

Both examples are not genocide, and yet, worse than genocide.

But this is besides the point. You've assumed that God exists and that he committed genocide. Due to the definition of God, this must have been the perfect solution, because this is what he ended up doing. All the other alternative solutions were obviously worse.
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face
#56JonWood007Posted 1/18/2013 4:37:48 PM

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.


While this is true, yours is no better. It's arbitrary and relies on circular, unfounded assumptions. While no moral standard I can come up with may be "perfect", at least mine attempts to treat people kindly. Eternal torment and genocide are two of the biggest possible moral violations I can think of. If those are not immoral, then you have no moral compass. You might as well live in a lawless society. After all, the point of morality is to give people rules by which to live by in some semblance of harmony with one another. It's meant to improve our lives, not degrade them. I can think of nothing more contrary to human interests and decency than torture and death. If your moral standard does not even deal with these consistently and fairly, then if I'm wrong, than I don't want to be right.



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.


You see why I don't like to debate with you? I don't have to assume crap about perfection. If I did assume the god of the Bible is perfect, I would find myself with a contradiction. How can such a god justify such heinous acts when he tells us to love our neighbors? You can allude to other reasons we don't know about and not having the facts all you want, but without moral justification, you're left with a contradiction. Not saying those other reasons don't exist, but at the same time, I say the same thing about bigfoot and the loch ness monster. You know how many genocides have happened because of this logic? Hitler's men, in brought up on war crimes, uttered the famous line "I was only following orders."

Unless you're gonna pony up an answer to said contradiction, like, an actual, convincing answer, that does not allude to the fact that we don't have all the facts, then we're done. If God exists, and is perfect, I think he'd understand exactly why I'd refuse to obey an authority figure who acts the way he does in the Bible. Your point of view ultimately comes down to unfounded circular assumptions and faith in these assumptions. I do not have this level of faith, nor do I desire to. Good day.

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.


More like, I refuse to listen to any logic that is not my own, even though it is based on blind assumptions and circular reasoning. You can't win a debate against someone who won't use reason.
---
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
#57OrangeWizardPosted 1/18/2013 4:40:13 PM
From: Faust_8 | #054
When you ask for proof, it either doesn't require proof, can't possibly be proven, or the burden of proof is on you instead.


Prove it.

when I posted dozens of times


Merely posting does not mean you're contributing to a discussion, so I don't know why you think that waving around your post count will help you.

I argued the exact same thing Jon and others were saying, I wasn't just taking potshots.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAAHH

You are such a liar.

More smoke screens. "I don't have to listen to you, you're not even posting enough in your own topic!" New version, "I don't have to listen to you, you just heckled!" Ad hominem, much?


More like "You haven't ever said anything worth listening to"

See? Even now you're not even contributing to the topical discussion. You're just trying, and failing, to call me out on how I'm such a horrible person.
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face
#58JonWood007Posted 1/18/2013 4:45:43 PM
And yeah, I'm done now. I'm gonna leave you with these lovely posters.

http://flywithmeproductions.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Reason-Quote-Thomas-Paine2.jpg

http://onefuriousllama.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/531425_10150941956067736_965042377_n.jpg
---
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
#59Faust_8Posted 1/18/2013 4:49:44 PM
What discussion? You mean where you continue to say the same 3 things for the 50th time and we try to find new ways to phrase the truth to you so you get it?

The "discussion" was over before the first 500. It just dragged on by trying to fit it into your skull...and then someone came along and restarted it like it wasn't finished, which actually wasn't you that time, but it did give you the excuse to come by again.
---
You are the universe
Expressing itself as a human, for a little while
#60GBALoserPosted 1/18/2013 4:50:20 PM
Gentlemen, just let this topic die. It reached its inevitable conclusion long ago, and it's now nothing more than beating a corpse.
---
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