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

"You can't criticize God" Continued

#61OrangeWizardPosted 1/18/2013 4:55:42 PM
From: JonWood007 | #056
While this is true, yours is no better.


It's not mine. It's God's.

Would you like to go on record saying that God's moral standard is no better than yours?

Eternal torment and genocide are two of the biggest possible moral violations I can think of.


1) God is doing/has done neither of those things
2)Nobody cares what you think.

You see why I don't like to debate with you?


Because I shut down your illogical statements at every turn, and you don't even recognize that what you said was illogical, despite how I explain it to you?

Yeah, I can see how that could be frustrating, though that's not my problem. You're just unable to recognize logic.

I don't have to assume crap about perfection.


If you want to criticize the God of the Bible, yes you do.

How can such a god justify such heinous acts when he tells us to love our neighbors?


With the greater good.
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face
#62OrangeWizardPosted 1/18/2013 4:55:45 PM
but without moral justification, you're left with a contradiction.


Argument from ignorance.

You cannot say "I do not have enough information to reconcile X and Y, therefore, it must be a contradiction!"

Also, "I don't agree that X is moral" is not a contradiction, because nobody cares what you think.

Sure, you can think illogical thoughts. You can hold the position that God needs to justify his actions TO YOU, in order to want to worship him, however arrogant that position is.

You can think that.

But that has nothing to do with criticizing the God of the bible in a logically consistent manner.
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face
#63LunarAmbiencePosted 1/18/2013 4:58:18 PM
From: OrangeWizard | #055
In my tautology, I wasn't explaining WHY the car was red. I was explaining WHY it wasn't blue.


You weren't explaining why it wasn't blue. The real answer to why it isn't blue is because it absorbs the wavelength that would make it blue. It isn't 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.


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.


I like how you attempt to reconcile the issue, and then make the bolded claim. Your italicized scenario. Isolate them in their own pocket dimension from each other, or sterilize them, and allow them to die naturally. This alternative is more compassionate and commits to the same end. A hypothetical God doing this would have been more exemplary of a perfect God.

And you're really muddying the issue. We have two things here. We have our definition of what Judeochristians would like their god to be. And then we have the God as described in the Holy Bible. If what the God of the Holy Bible does doesn't match the definition, you have a contradiction. As a result, Judeochristians have to wonder if they a) are following the wrong deity or b) must adjust their definition.

You choose c) preclude all independent assessment by asserting that that which the Judeochristian God does is perfect. That's fine and all, but if you want to remain consistent, quit pretending that a and b automatically disappear as possibilities.
---
The above is both true and false.
#64OrangeWizardPosted 1/18/2013 4:59:18 PM
From: Faust_8 | #059
What discussion?


See? You don't even know what we're talking about.
You're just some drunk guy who came stumbling in here and started yelling at the guys on stage. You have no intention on ever contributing anything to the debate

Get out of here before I call security.
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face
#65OrangeWizardPosted 1/18/2013 5:08:42 PM
From: LunarAmbience | #063
You weren't explaining why it wasn't blue.


Oh, okay, you know what I said better than I do, I guess. Even though I explicitly said "The car isn't blue because it's red".

That's not an explanation of why it isn't blue at all.

This alternative is more compassionate


>Being locked in a pocket dimension to die of starvation is more compassionate then killing them.

Okay. Says who? Your subjective moral standard? Now prove that your subjective moral standard actually matters, as opposed to Hitler's moral standard.

We have two things here. We have our definition of what Judeochristians would like their god to be. And then we have the God as described in the Holy Bible.


No, we just have God as described in the bible. There are no possibilities "a,b and c"
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face
#66LunarAmbiencePosted 1/18/2013 5:10:35 PM
And then we have a further dilemma. In MY religious text, Holy Book: An Edited History for You and Me, instead of wiping the majority of the population out in a flood, God instead sits down with them, gives them an ice cream cone, and has a therapeutic cognitive-behavioral session with each "bad" individual and changes their minds.

- Ice cream
- Demonstration of concern toward behavior
- Implementation of technique scientifically verified to change behavior for a statistically significant number of individuals
- Not killing people, at least until a guaranteed efficient way of changing the shamed behavior is implemented

Now, if humans could independently arrive at the conclusion that God is perfect WITHOUT appealing to this definition you push, which God would you rather believe in? Yet because, "Due to the definition of God, this must have been the perfect solution, because this is what he ended up doing," they are equal. So which God do you want to believe in? They're both the same. Just one story's different from the other.
---
The above is both true and false.
#67LunarAmbiencePosted 1/18/2013 5:17:15 PM
From: OrangeWizard | #065
Oh, okay, you know what I said better than I do, I guess. Even though I explicitly said "The car isn't blue because it's red".

That's not an explanation of why it isn't blue at all.

It isn't an explanation of why it isn't blue.

>Being locked in a pocket dimension to die of starvation is more compassionate then killing them.

Okay. Says who? Your subjective moral standard? Now prove that your subjective moral standard actually matters, as opposed to Hitler's moral standard.

I didn't say, "Don't give them food." Give them food. Put them in a Matrix or something.

Hold on, hold on, hold on. What kind of moral system states that, given two solutions with equal outcomes and in which the outcomes are of the highest concern, we should choose the one that results in more pain?

No, we just have God as described in the bible. There are no possibilities "a,b and c"


Uh. Yeah, there are. As soon as we start a discussion on inconsistent revelations, you'll whip out those possibilities for those non-Christians, won't you?
---
The above is both true and false.
#68OrangeWizardPosted 1/18/2013 5:19:17 PM
From: LunarAmbience | #066
In MY religious text, Holy Book: An Edited History for You and Me, instead of wiping the majority of the population out in a flood, God instead sits down with them, gives them an ice cream cone, and has a therapeutic cognitive-behavioral session with each "bad" individual and changes their minds.


That's nice.

However, we're not talking about the God of "Holy Book: An Edited History for You and Me", we're talking about the God of the Bible, commonly the King James Version.

Phew, what a dilemma. You almost had me there.

Now, if humans could independently arrive at the conclusion that God is perfect WITHOUT appealing to this definition you push, which God would you rather believe in?


Does it matter? I don't see how this is on-topic.
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face
#69LunarAmbiencePosted 1/18/2013 5:23:54 PM
From: OrangeWizard | #068
That's nice.

However, we're not talking about the God of "Holy Book: An Edited History for You and Me", we're talking about the God of the Bible, commonly the King James Version.

Phew, what a dilemma. You almost had me there.


Do you arrive at your definition before or after you choose to believe in the Holy Bible instead of Koran or the Vedas?

Does it matter? I don't see how this is on-topic.


The weak point is the individual. God is perfect, but if humans are unable to independently assess God's behavior, how do they know which God best fits their definition?
---
The above is both true and false.
#70OrangeWizardPosted 1/18/2013 5:26:42 PM(edited)
From: LunarAmbience | #069
Do you arrive at your definition before or after you choose to believe in the Holy Bible instead of Koran or the Vedas?


off topic

The weak point is the individual. God is perfect, but if humans are unable to independently assess God's behavior, how do they know which God best fits their definition?


Because anybody with a brain knows which God we're all talking about. Especially when they use THE BIBLE to criticize him.
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face