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

Looking at common apologetics about Hell.

#121DarkContractor(Topic Creator)Posted 2/12/2013 7:34:37 PM
From: countzander | #120
dkcprje posted...
From: countzander | #115
There's no evidence that I'm wrong.


WRONG.

I am not saying "there's no evidence I'm wrong, therefore I'm right." I am saying "There is nothing I'm missing from an omniscient perspective that deprives me of my ability to criticize an omnipotent character."

I am not missing anything. I don't need anything. We're not missing evidence. We have everything we need to draw a conclusion!

On the other hand, saying, "You may or may not have all the information, therefore, God is more informed than you" IS argument from ignorance.

So good on you, chap.


No, it's still an argument from ignorance. How do you know there's nothing you're missing from an omniscient perspective?




By this logic, literally any conclusion we could come to about anything ever can be called into question since outside of omniscience it's impossible to know if we have all the important factors at hand. In fact, by this logic, it's impossible to believe in your religion. How do I know Christianity is correct when there could be proof it's incorrect just outside my mental grasp? How do I know Jesus is beyond moral reproach when there could be something objectively immoral right outside my mental grasp?

You have the burden of proof. If there's something I or dk is failing ton consider in our analysis, you need to demonstrate it. It's not our job to prove that we aren't missing a critical piece of information.
---
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
#122countzanderPosted 2/12/2013 8:18:20 PM
DarkContractor posted...
From: countzander | #120
dkcprje posted...
From: countzander | #115
There's no evidence that I'm wrong.


WRONG.

I am not saying "there's no evidence I'm wrong, therefore I'm right." I am saying "There is nothing I'm missing from an omniscient perspective that deprives me of my ability to criticize an omnipotent character."

I am not missing anything. I don't need anything. We're not missing evidence. We have everything we need to draw a conclusion!

On the other hand, saying, "You may or may not have all the information, therefore, God is more informed than you" IS argument from ignorance.

So good on you, chap.


No, it's still an argument from ignorance. How do you know there's nothing you're missing from an omniscient perspective?




By this logic, literally any conclusion we could come to about anything ever can be called into question since outside of omniscience it's impossible to know if we have all the important factors at hand. In fact, by this logic, it's impossible to believe in your religion. How do I know Christianity is correct when there could be proof it's incorrect just outside my mental grasp? How do I know Jesus is beyond moral reproach when there could be something objectively immoral right outside my mental grasp?

You have the burden of proof. If there's something I or dk is failing ton consider in our analysis, you need to demonstrate it. It's not our job to prove that we aren't missing a critical piece of information.


Almost everything can be called into question, even countzander's beliefs. Socrates, the wisest of men, in his own words, "knew nothing." But fortunately, belief and knowledge are not the same. You can believe something and not know that it's true. Since knowledge is unattainable, we settle for degrees of belief.

But back on topic, the burden of proof rests upon the person making the assertion. In this case, that would be you two. You and DK are saying that God is unjust or something. I'm saying that, without an objective standard of morality by which to judge God's actions (i.e. unless you have all the information available to God), you cannot justifiably say that God is...unjust. God, in his omniscience, would very well know that what he is doing is right or wrong. But the only standard you have is an ignorant one based upon incomplete information and a subjective repulsion to God's actions. It is not possible to hold God to an ignorant standard. (I mean, does a toddler know enough about anything to condemn his parents for giving him a time-out?) In order to justifiably condemn God, you need to show that God knows he's in the wrong. You two need to demonstrate how God is unjust without making appeals to weak, subjective ideas of morality.

DK has asserted that he knows all he needs to know. But this is an argument from ignorance. Why? Because, like a little child whining about his parents being mean, DK and many other skeptics lack the ability and the knowledge to completely comprehend the situation in question. Parents can comprehend the idea of discipline and know that their children will better for it. The children, on the other hand, think monsters live in the closet.
---
http://i.imgur.com/k1nGh.jpg
#123DarkContractor(Topic Creator)Posted 2/13/2013 5:42:38 PM
From: countzander | #122
Almost everything can be called into question, even countzander's beliefs. Socrates, the wisest of men, in his own words, "knew nothing." But fortunately, belief and knowledge are not the same. You can believe something and not know that it's true. Since knowledge is unattainable, we settle for degrees of belief.


So your counter point is it's about faith now? try and imagine how much help that is to disciplining someone without faith. go ahead, put yourself in my shoes.

But back on topic, the burden of proof rests upon the person making the assertion. In this case, that would be you two. You and DK are saying that God is unjust or something.


I'm saying based on the evidence, he's unjust. And I can easily defend that. As I have been.

I'm saying that, without an objective standard of morality by which to judge God's actions (i.e. unless you have all the information available to God), you cannot justifiably say that God is...unjust. God, in his omniscience, would very well know that what he is doing is right or wrong.


And so this automatically means he picks the right option.

But the only standard you have is an ignorant one based upon incomplete information and a subjective repulsion to God's actions. It is not possible to hold God to an ignorant standard. (I mean, does a toddler know enough about anything to condemn his parents for giving him a time-out?) In order to justifiably condemn God, you need to show that God knows he's in the wrong. You two need to demonstrate how God is unjust without making appeals to weak, subjective ideas of morality.


Yeah sure. God condemns lying. God says he'll take care of our needs like hunger. Like clothes. Africa? GG. God says the blood of Jesus covers our sins. but he also says there's unforgivable sins.

And again, if I got to assume the Bible, then I got to assume all the contradictions. So logically, no, I can't believe the Bible. It's like having the axiom that 1+1=2 and 1+1=3 at the same time.



DK has asserted that he knows all he needs to know. But this is an argument from ignorance. Why?


No, he's asserted he's using all he knows. the fact is if God gave him more information he wouldn't be in this scenario.

"Because, like a little child whining about his parents being mean, DK and many other skeptics lack the ability and the knowledge to completely comprehend the situation in question. Parents can comprehend the idea of discipline and know that their children will better for it. The children, on the other hand, think monsters live in the closet."
Parents giving you a time out and punishing you is to shape you, make you a better man, and teach you things. If Hell's eternal, that goes out the window.


And seriously, if there's something I could be missing from the big picture, then there's just as likely something you're missing as well that could make the actions even more immoral than I think it is. It's a textbook appeal to ignorance, and easily reversible. Any reason you have to maintain faith? Whatever your testimony is? Whatever miracles, Spirit convictions you think you have? Whatever answered prayers you have? there could be something YOU don't know that could invalidate the whole thing.

really, a lot of this comes down to just trusting God, and trusting someone's right without any evidence could perhaps be viewed as noble, I think strong faith is admirable, but it has 0 place in a debate.
---
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
#124countzanderPosted 2/13/2013 10:18:24 PM
So your counter point is it's about faith now? try and imagine how much help that is to disciplining someone without faith. go ahead, put yourself in my shoes.

'
You had faith. It was your decision to take the easier road instead.

I'm saying based on the evidence, he's unjust. And I can easily defend that. As I have been.


The only defense I've seen has been "That doesn't seem right." Unless there's an objective moral standard, the only defense you can mount is one based upon moral relativism.

And so this automatically means he picks the right option.


No, I'm just saying we have to reserve our judgment.

Yeah sure. God condemns lying. God says he'll take care of our needs like hunger. Like clothes. Africa? GG. God says the blood of Jesus covers our sins. but he also says there's unforgivable sins. [P] And again, if I got to assume the Bible, then I got to assume all the contradictions. So logically, no, I can't believe the Bible. It's like having the axiom that 1+1=2 and 1+1=3 at the same time.


God said he'll supply the needs of those who diligently follow him. Maybe Africans and others aren't doing it right. Besides, temporal discomfort is irrelevant if you believe in heaven.

And there are no definite contradictions in the Bible. The alleged contradictions are concoctions of strict literalism, lazy reading, and theological ignorance, with a little narrow mindedness sprinkled in. Seriously, I challenge you to bring one up, and I'll adequately show why it's not necessarily a contradiction.

Parents giving you a time out and punishing you is to shape you, make you a better man, and teach you things. If Hell's eternal, that goes out the window.

And seriously, if there's something I could be missing from the big picture, then there's just as likely something you're missing as well that could make the actions even more immoral than I think it is. It's a textbook appeal to ignorance, and easily reversible. Any reason you have to maintain faith? Whatever your testimony is? Whatever miracles, Spirit convictions you think you have? Whatever answered prayers you have? there could be something YOU don't know that could invalidate the whole thing.

really, a lot of this comes down to just trusting God, and trusting someone's right without any evidence could perhaps be viewed as noble, I think strong faith is admirable, but it has 0 place in a debate.


The parent analogy is meant to show that we're incapable of comprehending God's actions, not that God's method of discipline is justified. The point is that no one knows enough about anything to conclusively condemn God's actions. At the best, you can say, "I believe God is just/unjust because [insert subjective reason here]."

I might be wrong about Christianity but I might not be. I'm siding with Pascal on this one. "If I saw no signs of a divinity, I would fix myself in denial. If I saw everywhere the marks of a Creator, I would repose peacefully in faith. But seeing too much to deny Him, and too little to assure me, I am in a pitiful state, and I would wish a hundred times that if a god sustains nature it would reveal Him without ambiguity."

Finally, for your last paragraph--I'll just fix it by replacing "evidence" with "evidence I find convincing."
---
http://i.imgur.com/k1nGh.jpg
#125ThuggernautzPosted 2/14/2013 8:15:59 AM
countzander posted...

The only defense I've seen has been "That doesn't seem right." Unless there's an objective moral standard, the only defense you can mount is one based upon moral relativism.


Which is the only morality there is. Unless you wish to try and prove absolute morality. Go ahead. In fact, go one step further and prove that God even is omniscient. Because until you can do that, the criticism stands, otherwise it's akin to me saying "The flying invisible magical unicorn knows everything. You don't know everything so you can't judge it." Textbook argument from ignorance.


The parent analogy is meant to show that we're incapable of comprehending God's actions, not that God's method of discipline is justified. The point is that no one knows enough about anything to conclusively condemn God's actions. At the best, you can say, "I believe God is just/unjust because [insert subjective reason here]."

I might be wrong about Christianity but I might not be. I'm siding with Pascal on this one. "If I saw no signs of a divinity, I would fix myself in denial. If I saw everywhere the marks of a Creator, I would repose peacefully in faith. But seeing too much to deny Him, and too little to assure me, I am in a pitiful state, and I would wish a hundred times that if a god sustains nature it would reveal Him without ambiguity."

Finally, for your last paragraph--I'll just fix it by replacing "evidence" with "evidence I find convincing."


Pascal's Wager is bad and you should feel bad. DC is right, though. Your argument from ignorance is fallacious and can equally be applied to your position.
#126OrangeWizardPosted 2/14/2013 8:40:54 AM
There's no argument from ignorance there. He's only being consistent with your assumptions.

You're assuming that God exists, and that he sends people to hell.
Based off of this, you need to assume a whole bunch of other things, like "God is an objective moral standard" and "God is omniscient".

To backpedal and to say "Prove an objective morality" and say "Prove God is omniscient" means that YOU'RE being inconsistent, since these things should already be assumed.

tsk tsk.
---
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive things.
#127ThuggernautzPosted 2/14/2013 9:03:34 AM(edited)
OrangeWizard posted...
There's no argument from ignorance there. He's only being consistent with your assumptions.

You're assuming that God exists, and that he sends people to hell.
Based off of this, you need to assume a whole bunch of other things, like "God is an objective moral standard" and "God is omniscient".

To backpedal and to say "Prove an objective morality" and say "Prove God is omniscient" means that YOU'RE being inconsistent, since these things should already be assumed.

tsk tsk.


Sorry, the ghost who never lies said it's pointless to argue with you about this again, and that I'm right and the definition of your God is incorrect. You don't understand the big picture like he does, so you can't judge.
#128OrangeWizardPosted 2/14/2013 9:57:52 AM
From: Thuggernautz | #127

Sorry, the ghost who never lies


You know the difference between God and the ghost who never lies?

We're all assuming God, for the sake of argument.
We're not all assuming that the ghost who never lies exists.
---
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive things.
#129ThuggernautzPosted 2/14/2013 10:06:31 AM
OrangeWizard posted...

You know the difference between God and the ghost who never lies?

We're all assuming God, for the sake of argument.
We're not all assuming that the ghost who never lies exists.


Sorry, the ghost who never lies doesn't need your assumption to be true.
#130countzanderPosted 2/14/2013 3:25:08 PM
Thuggernautz posted...
Which is the only morality there is. Unless you wish to try and prove absolute morality. Go ahead. In fact, go one step further and prove that God even is omniscient. Because until you can do that, the criticism stands, otherwise it's akin to me saying "The flying invisible magical unicorn knows everything. You don't know everything so you can't judge it." Textbook argument from ignorance.


Another argument from ignorance. It has never been demonstrated that moral relativity is the only morality in existence. The only conclusion you can make is that it may be the only one. Asserting its exclusive existence anyway is fallacious. But let's just assume you're right: Relative morality is the only one in existence. In that case, saying God is evil is like saying the woman in my sig is a ugly. Opinions don't mean much in rational discussions.

The second part of your criticism is irrelevant. God's omniscience does not (and cannot) be proven since God, by definition, is omniscient. (Can you prove that a triangle has three sides?) And Russel's teapots are also irrelevant. They're weak analogies and are too dissimilar to God to make an adequate comparison.

My criticism continues to stand. Unless you have an objective standard of morality, God's actions are neither definitely good nor definitely bad. Asserting either position is just opinion.

Pascal's Wager is bad and you should feel bad. DC is right, though. Your argument from ignorance is fallacious and can equally be applied to your position.


No, it can't be applied to my position. In order to have committed the argument from ignorance, I would have needed to have asserted something like "You're wrong because you haven't demonstrated you're right." (Ironically, that's what you and DC are saying.)
I've simply pointed out that it doesn't make sense to pass judgment on God. It's the same as a child condemning his parents for putting him in time out. If the child cannot comprehend discipline, he lacks the ability to justifiably condemn his parents. He just...doesn't...know...enough. If God knows everything while humans don't, humans lack the ability to pass judgment on God. There very well could be some inscrutable reason which would justify God's actions.

The intellectually honest position is "I don't know whether God's actions are good, but I believe [insert opinion here]."

And there's the fact that God, by definition, is good. If God exists, then everything he does is automatically good, regardless of what you think. But that makes for a boring argument.
---
http://i.imgur.com/k1nGh.jpg