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

Let me just throw this question out there. Isn't it true that Satan

#61C_MatPosted 4/23/2013 3:19:45 PM
DarkContractor posted...
Actually, my basis is the well-being of humanity. I counter with why is God a basis for good and evil? How do I know I can trust him?


The first one seems a pointless question. You can make anything the basis of good and evil, regardless of how much you trust it. I could make the Star Wars movies a basis for distinguishing good and evil, or I could make my feelings the basis, but most would agree that those are a flimsy basis. The question you should ask is: "Why is God a superior basis of good and evil over the well-being of humanity?" And my response is: "Because God is the only basis for objective moral values and duties."

Please, I have zero intentions of using Christian morality. I am not a bigot, afterall. Also, you need to prove the Bible before you treat it as an objective morality. Until then, your morality is just as much of an arbitary bottom up as mine (in fact more so, at the very least mine is better in that it is more productive. Is the betterment of humanity not necessarily good, either? Even if you COULD prove the God of the Bible, all this means is that God said the things he said in the Bible. This does nothing to prove God's morality. He could be a complete monster, heartless and evil and supportive of human suffering (actually, he is supportive of human suffering. Read: Hell). An objective morality can never be achieved, it requires an arbitary bottom up no matter what. Mine is the well being of humanity, yours is an egotistic deity that watches souls perish in Hell, makes people eat fecal matter for repentance (Malachi 3:2, Ezkeil (sp?) 14), forces family to kill each other by the sword (Exodus 32), and then there's just the whole **** that goes on in Judges. He's okay with people dying of starvation, he's okay with some of the ****ed up species you see (such as the frog that has to break its bones in order to move, I really need to find the name of that) Don't think I can describe that on GameFAQs without being modded for offensive content. Since objective morality can never actually be proven, we are forced to this dichtomy. I think I'm fine with not being able to demonstrate an epistemology of which one of these is 'good' that doesn't lend itself to the question "why".


You are asking me to "prove God's morality." How in the heck would someone "prove" the morality of anything? Before I can answer that question for you, please explain how it would be possible for anyone to answer it.

Yet he had the power to stop the compassion and the misery. In my morality, you can show compassion for everyone. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. Let me tell you about all the compassion I have for God for being victimized to the horrendous crime of not being worshiped.....And I'm done.


I can provide an answer that probably explains why God allows suffering in the world. But first, is it possible that God has a reason for allowing a degree of suffering in the world, you just don't know that reason? I can't prove that God does, I'm just trying to make you be fair about this. So far, you have displayed a mindset of, "If I don't know God's reason, He must not have one."

God still only gave 25% regardless of how you look at it. That is an objective fact in your allegory...... Why would God's omnibenevolence be verified by means of the lack of verification of mine? Why ought my lack of omnibenevolence cancel out his?


The 25% was a random number, not meant to be representative of God's true effort. I explained my purpose for asking the question, but it seems that went over your head, so I'm just going to let this part go. It was never a question meant to establish God's goodness or defame your character.
---
http://youtu.be/gmnSnNC8UJk
#62OrangeWizardPosted 4/23/2013 3:24:01 PM
From: C_Mat | #061
I explained my purpose for asking the question, but it seems that went over your head


That's often what analogies do when somebody doesn't want to answer to them.

It's not so much that it goes over one's head, as it is one going to to great lengths to duck under it.
---
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive
#63C_MatPosted 4/23/2013 3:24:10 PM
DarkContractor posted...
n fact, even if we could trust God, how does God discern morality? Even if he was omniscient (which he's not, it's a logical impossibility. You can never arrive to the conclusion of omniscience without using your omniscience, which is circular logic, and you can never disprove that there's something you don't know and that you don't know that you don't know it, but that's another topic), then what does God do from there? What conclusion can God make from the facts, even if he has all of them, can I not say 'why is that good and moral though?" That's leaping past the hurdles of "Is God trustworthy?" and "Is God omniscient" anyways, just to see what happens next in the logic.

Also, in the discourse based on the axiom that God is an objective morality, I have zero problem considering myself evil. My goal is not 'good' but to have the best intentions for humanity.


Who said God is omnipotent or omniscient? I hope God's not omniscient, then He would still remember the sins He said He would forget!

And if God is in fact the creator of the universe and started life on this planet, I think He has the right to determine how those humans should treat each other and Him.

One thing you never addressed (unless I missed it): you keep saying God is inhumane because He punishes people. Yet you seemed to agree that I wouldn't be inhumane to punish criminals/bombers. Why is punishment inhumane for God to do, and not for us?
---
http://youtu.be/gmnSnNC8UJk
#64hunter_gohanPosted 4/23/2013 9:24:21 PM
C_Mat posted...
You still don't get it. You are not even making an argument. You're just saying, "I don't like might makes right" again and again, and drawing comparisons between the Christian God to a dictator without even actually addressing how the Christian God contrasts any dictator.


Do you really need to be told why might doesn't actually make right? Here, I'll copy and paste it:

"If YHWH being more powerful than humans justifies his atrocities against us, then Hitler having more power than the Jews justifies his atrocities against them. "

Using this logic the holocaust was right. Is anyone willing to take that stance? With this logic literally everything that happened/will happen was/will be right, because if it happened the perpetrator obviously had the might to do it. That action will then become wrong the moment someone has the might to stop the first person from doing it.

Furthermore, you've also acknowledged that your "argument" has no factual basis, just your opinion. I see no reason to waste my time waiting for you to come up with something of substance any longer.


No morals or rights have any factual basis. Pretending yours does doesn't actually make them better. I'm just being honest about it. We can go perform experiments right now which will show the acceleration of gravity at sea level is ~9.791 m/s^2. That is something with a factual basis. What experiments, or even basic facts, can you put forth for any of your morals or things you hold as rights? They are entirely subjective, no matter if they originate within a human mind or a god's mind.
---
The food that stands on his [Odin's] table he gives to two wolves of his called Geri and Freki. He himself needs no food; wine is for him both drink and meat.
#65DarkContractorPosted 4/24/2013 2:55:20 AM
The first one seems a pointless question. You can make anything the basis of good and evil, regardless of how much you trust it. I could make the Star Wars movies a basis for distinguishing good and evil, or I could make my feelings the basis, but most would agree that those are a flimsy basis. The question you should ask is: "Why is God a superior basis of good and evil over the well-being of humanity?" And my response is: "Because God is the only basis for objective moral values and duties."


No God is not. Objective morality requires an arbitrary bottom up. You seem to act like it's some fact that God's morality must be perfect, which is not true at all. This is the point that HG and I keep trying to tell you.

You are asking me to "prove God's morality." How in the heck would someone "prove" the morality of anything? Before I can answer that question for you, please explain how it would be possible for anyone to answer it.


You can't, that's the point. Morality requires an arbitary bottom up for objectivity. So quit pretending like it's some basic that God's morality would be a objective fact.

I can provide an answer that probably explains why God allows suffering in the world. But first, is it possible that God has a reason for allowing a degree of suffering in the world, you just don't know that reason? I can't prove that God does, I'm just trying to make you be fair about this. So far, you have displayed a mindset of, "If I don't know God's reason, He must not have one."


Of course he could have one. He could have a reason for making people eat poop, burning people in Hell, making family slaughter family, the **** in Judges (that stuff sounds like a horror story), etc. just like there could be a good reason behind 9-11 that we don't know. I ain't holding my breath on this one though.

The 25% was a random number, not meant to be representative of God's true effort. I explained my purpose for asking the question, but it seems that went over your head, so I'm just going to let this part go. It was never a question meant to establish God's goodness or defame your character.


No I get the point. "If other people don't conform to moral standards, how come we don't hold God to them?". I hold people and God to moral standards. le gasp. Ironically, God ranks far below some of the most sadistic
people to have ever walked the Earth.


One thing you never addressed (unless I missed it): you keep saying God is inhumane because He punishes people. Yet you seemed to agree that I wouldn't be inhumane to punish criminals/bombers. Why is punishment inhumane for God to do, and not for us?


Haha, good job using broad nouns to show an illusion of harmonization. In the first sentence punishment would refer to jail to keep them from being a danger to society. they still have the basic necessities, often times cable tv, books, basketball, etc. In the latter use of punishment, it's throwing people into fires. Yes, if our government ever started doing that to people I would be disgusted. If they ever started making people eat crap as punishment I would abhorred.
---
"If God exists why did I stub my toe this morning?" - Me "Well If God doesnt exist how do we bacon CHECKMATE ATHEISTS" - TheRealJiraiya
#66DarkContractorPosted 4/24/2013 2:55:25 AM
Who said God is omnipotent or omniscient? I hope God's not omniscient, then He would still remember the sins He said He would forget!


Fair enough, most people assume omniscience and then derive objective morality from that.


And if God is in fact the creator of the universe and started life on this planet, I think He has the right to determine how those humans should treat each other and Him.


So your arbitrary bottom up for objective morality is 'might makes right'. The point HG keeps trying to get across to you, is that historically this REALLY doesn't work out well. (See: Stalin, the Old Testament (hiyo), etc.) The arbitary bottom up can be judged in its effectiveness in establishing a functional society (afterall studies of evolutionary psychology are showing us that morality originates as a tool of evolution to help establish communities). And yeah, God's moral code sucks at that. It's held society back for millenniums and is a plague. I want you to explain why a Creator has rights over the creations. Don't give me that clay metaphor, clay isn't alive. The moment sentience enters into the debate it's a whole other ballpark.
---
"If God exists why did I stub my toe this morning?" - Me "Well If God doesnt exist how do we bacon CHECKMATE ATHEISTS" - TheRealJiraiya
#67Reinbach_IIIPosted 4/24/2013 9:21:16 AM
From: XoarWins | #058
God does not terrorize me.

Unless you think that the entire world revolves around you, I'm not sure why you would think that amounts to a rebuttal of his point.
---
I'm honored to shake the hand of a brave Iraqi citizen who had his hand cut off by Saddam Hussein. - George W. Bush
#68C_MatPosted 4/26/2013 3:25:16 PM
DarkContractor posted...
No God is not. Objective morality requires an arbitrary bottom up. You seem to act like it's some fact that God's morality must be perfect, which is not true at all. This is the point that HG and I keep trying to tell you.


If the basis of objective morality was arbitrary, it wouldn't be objective.

You can't, that's the point. Morality requires an arbitary bottom up for objectivity. So quit pretending like it's some basic that God's morality would be a objective fact.


I wasn't saying God's morality always has to be an objective fact. I said it's the only possible way we can know objective morals.

Of course he could have one. He could have a reason for making people eat poop, burning people in Hell, making family slaughter family, the **** in Judges (that stuff sounds like a horror story), etc. just like there could be a good reason behind 9-11 that we don't know. I ain't holding my breath on this one though.


Alright, so you admit that there could be a reason you're unaware of. That's the first step. Now here's my full answer:

God's ultimate plan is to bring as many people as possible into a saving relationship with Him. I believe He allows the exact amount of suffering necessary to bring the maximum number of people to salvation. I think it's likely that if there were anymore suffering in the world, it would probably turn more people away from God; and if there were any less suffering in the world, it would make more people feel as if they did not need God. I don't see any reason to think that if God snapped His fingers and made all the pain and suffering go away, that it would mean more people would enter into a saving relationship with Him. In fact, when life is going good, people are less likely to feel they need God than ever. It's usually when things go wrong that people start looking for God.

I can't prove that, I think it makes the most sense in the answer of "why would a good god allow suffering."

No I get the point. "If other people don't conform to moral standards, how come we don't hold God to them?". I hold people and God to moral standards. le gasp. Ironically, God ranks far below some of the most sadistic people to have ever walked the Earth.


No, that wasn't my point either, but like I said, I'll forget this part because the conversation is getting dragged out unnecessarily far.

Haha, good job using broad nouns to show an illusion of harmonization. In the first sentence punishment would refer to jail to keep them from being a danger to society. they still have the basic necessities, often times cable tv, books, basketball, etc. In the latter use of punishment, it's throwing people into fires. Yes, if our government ever started doing that to people I would be disgusted. If they ever started making people eat crap as punishment I would abhorred.


So if God gave people jail time instead of fire, you would be OK with His divine justice?
---
http://youtu.be/gmnSnNC8UJk
#69C_MatPosted 4/26/2013 3:25:31 PM
So your arbitrary bottom up for objective morality is 'might makes right'. The point HG keeps trying to get across to you, is that historically this REALLY doesn't work out well. (See: Stalin, the Old Testament (hiyo), etc.) The arbitary bottom up can be judged in its effectiveness in establishing a functional society (afterall studies of evolutionary psychology are showing us that morality originates as a tool of evolution to help establish communities). And yeah, God's moral code sucks at that. It's held society back for millenniums and is a plague. I want you to explain why a Creator has rights over the creations. Don't give me that clay metaphor, clay isn't alive. The moment sentience enters into the debate it's a whole other ballpark.


I am not arguing might makes right. I am arguing that being a creator gives you rights to enforce whatever rules you want on your creation. If I build a Jenga tower, who has the right to knock it down? Am I doing anything wrong by the Jenga tower if I decide to knock it down?

I will not even bother responding to it when you compare God to Hitler and Stalin. Just like HG, you are being intellectually dishonest. You also must acknowledge how God contrasts Hitler and Stalin. Otherwise you're just spewing random crap.
---
http://youtu.be/gmnSnNC8UJk
#70DarkContractorPosted 4/26/2013 4:06:54 PM
From: C_Mat | #068
DarkContractor posted...
No God is not. Objective morality requires an arbitrary bottom up. You seem to act like it's some fact that God's morality must be perfect, which is not true at all. This is the point that HG and I keep trying to tell you.


If the basis of objective morality was arbitrary, it wouldn't be objective.


Ex ****ing actly

I wasn't saying God's morality always has to be an objective fact. I said it's the only possible way we can know objective morals.


Why is "God said so" not an arbitary bottom up?

Alright, so you admit that there could be a reason you're unaware of. That's the first step. Now here's my full answer:

God's ultimate plan is to bring as many people as possible into a saving relationship with Him. I believe He allows the exact amount of suffering necessary to bring the maximum number of people to salvation. I think it's likely that if there were anymore suffering in the world, it would probably turn more people away from God; and if there were any less suffering in the world, it would make more people feel as if they did not need God. I don't see any reason to think that if God snapped His fingers and made all the pain and suffering go away, that it would mean more people would enter into a saving relationship with Him. In fact, when life is going good, people are less likely to feel they need God than ever. It's usually when things go wrong that people start looking for God.

I can't prove that, I think it makes the most sense in the answer of "why would a good god allow suffering."


You're just rationalizing now.

So if God gave people jail time instead of fire, you would be OK with His divine justice?


I'd be okay with the Hell part of it. From: C_Mat | #069


"I am not arguing might makes right. I am arguing that being a creator gives you rights to enforce whatever rules you want on your creation. If I build a Jenga tower, who has the right to knock it down? Am I doing anything wrong by the Jenga tower if I decide to knock it down?"

I don't think you know what might makes right is, because you are definitely arguing it. Also, if the Jenga tower is alive and can feel pain and emotion, yes, without hesitation, I want nothing to do with the person who knocks it down. Quit pretending that "Creators rights" isn't an arbitrary bottom up, because it is, and that's where your morality is built up from.

"I will not even bother responding to it when you compare God to Hitler and Stalin. Just like HG, you are being intellectually dishonest. You also must acknowledge how God contrasts Hitler and Stalin. Otherwise you're just spewing random crap."

I see the contrast, I assure you. And the contrast makes me rather follow Stalin/Hitler than I would Yahweh. This is just an ad hominem and you haven't even demonstrated one bit why i should trust God or why his morality can be objective; you just keep spewing it out like a broken record player.

Unless your next post can prove that divinity leads to objective morality, you've lost this debate.
---
"If God exists why did I stub my toe this morning?" - Me "Well If God doesnt exist how do we bacon CHECKMATE ATHEISTS" - TheRealJiraiya