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

Is God Good?

#101IamvegitoPosted 5/22/2013 7:31:26 PM
From: OrangeWizard | #077
No you're not.

The question is "Is God Good?" not "Is Killing a baby bad?"

Sorry, but no. We have already established that God is good. That's the entire premise. The answer to "is God good" is obviously "yes." What we're talking about is how the baby killing can relate to a good entity.
---
"A day will come when you think yourself safe and happy, and suddenly your joy will turn to ashes in your mouth, and you'll know the debt is paid."
#102IamvegitoPosted 5/22/2013 7:34:55 PM
From: Slade867 | #098
1. X is Y.
2. X does G.
3. Is X = Y?

It should be noted that this is like saying 1=1. It has no real meaning.It's completely useless for any proper debate. If you wish a debate and someone does this, change the propositions.


1. X is purportedly Y.
2. X does G, which runs counter to Y.
3. Is X = Y?

Now we have something to talk about.

Also, this. We can discuss this.
---
"A day will come when you think yourself safe and happy, and suddenly your joy will turn to ashes in your mouth, and you'll know the debt is paid."
#103kirsybuuPosted 5/22/2013 10:15:32 PM
From: Slade867 | Posted: 5/22/2013 8:21:31 PM | #100
This is what is known as a paradox, and is meaningless in logic.

If "If P then Q" is true then "if P then not Q" cannot be true.


A paradox is different than a contradiction, and this is about contradictions. "P -> Q" and "P -> ~Q" are both true statements if P is false.
---
"sabe que no puede resistir mis encantos sensuales." ~ Poolshark128
#104kozlo100Posted 5/22/2013 10:55:28 PM
kirsybuu posted...
I'm not asserting "X is not in Z," I'm demonstrating that you can't assert that "There is only one right answer."


I don't see where you get that from the problem, as presented.

You have 'X is Y', then you have 'X did Z', then you have 'Is X Y?'

That X is Y is an axiom, with no contradictions presented. X and Y are sufficiently defined, and Z is not defined as contradictory. The assertion that there is only one right answer is correct, because the answer to that question is axiomatic.
---
Time flies like the wind,
and fruit flies like a banana.
#105Slade867Posted 5/23/2013 4:35:09 AM
kirsybuu posted...
From: Slade867 | Posted: 5/22/2013 8:21:31 PM | #100
This is what is known as a paradox, and is meaningless in logic.

If "If P then Q" is true then "if P then not Q" cannot be true.


A paradox is different than a contradiction, and this is about contradictions. "P -> Q" and "P -> ~Q" are both true statements if P is false.


But P is true. An untrue P is denoted by "Not P" in the example same as "Not Q".
---
Would you rather be a force for good or a force for change?
#106kirsybuuPosted 5/23/2013 8:34:54 AM
From: kozlo100 | Posted: 5/22/2013 11:55:28 PM | #104
kirsybuu posted...
I'm not asserting "X is not in Z," I'm demonstrating that you can't assert that "There is only one right answer."


I don't see where you get that from the problem, as presented.

You have 'X is Y', then you have 'X did Z', then you have 'Is X Y?'

That X is Y is an axiom, with no contradictions presented. X and Y are sufficiently defined, and Z is not defined as contradictory. The assertion that there is only one right answer is correct, because the answer to that question is axiomatic.


Z is not defined as non-contradictory either.

From: Slade867 | Posted: 5/23/2013 5:35:09 AM | #105
kirsybuu posted...
From: Slade867 | Posted: 5/22/2013 8:21:31 PM | #100
This is what is known as a paradox, and is meaningless in logic.

If "If P then Q" is true then "if P then not Q" cannot be true.


A paradox is different than a contradiction, and this is about contradictions. "P -> Q" and "P -> ~Q" are both true statements if P is false.


But P is true. An untrue P is denoted by "Not P" in the example same as "Not Q".


That's not how symbolic logic works. <_<

P and Q are free variables: they can stand for anything. ~P is the negation of P. P -> Q is false only if P is true and Q is false.

For example, "if bachelors are married then steak is vegetarian" is a proposition of the form P -> Q, where P = "bachelors are married" and Q = "steak is vegetarian."
---
"sabe que no puede resistir mis encantos sensuales." ~ Poolshark128
#107kozlo100Posted 5/23/2013 8:50:42 AM
kirsybuu posted...
Z is not defined as non-contradictory either.


It doesn't have to be. Think of it like a series of math equations, as math is formal logic.

X = Y
X + Z
Does X = Y?

Z's relation to X and Y being undefined doesn't mean the answer to the question is ambiguous.
---
Time flies like the wind,
and fruit flies like a banana.
#108Slade867Posted 5/23/2013 9:21:38 AM
kirsybuu posted...
That's not how symbolic logic works. <_<

P and Q are free variables: they can stand for anything. ~P is the negation of P. P -> Q is false only if P is true and Q is false.

For example, "if bachelors are married then steak is vegetarian" is a proposition of the form P -> Q, where P = "bachelors are married" and Q = "steak is vegetarian."


You've got to stick to the symbols you propose.

You cannot say:

1) P = undefined.
2) P = "bachelors are married"

without creating a paradox unless you also mean to say "bachelors are married" = undefined, which I don't think is what you mean to say.

Symbolically,

P -> Q = true.
A -> Q = true.

So then P = A? No. Not, unless you define them that way.
---
Would you rather be a force for good or a force for change?
#109black spiderPosted 5/23/2013 10:10:11 AM
The answer to the poll is by necessity yes, since "God is good" is both a premise and the question being asked. Voting anything other than yes would seem to be a violation of logic.

One can argue that baby-killing disproves the premise, which I suppose would allow one to truthfully answer no, but that's somewhat beyond the logic of the question, isn't it? Besides, it's not universally accepted anyway. There's a large group of people who would argue that God defines what is good, which means it's impossible for any action God takes to not be good. Therefore, if we consider God's action to be anything but beyond saint-like, we are wrong.

What we're left with is essentially X = Y, X does Z, is X = Y? And the answer is of course yes.

But the thing is, I don't care how Christians define "good" since I'm not a Christian myself. For that reason, I also don't have to give a damn about the logical problems they run into with their irrational assumptions and senseless definitions. I consider it my privilege to form my own opinion about scenarios. In my opinion, God is not good. And killing a baby doesn't make Him any better. Therefore I voted no. I would've preferred to vote "false premise", but that option was not available and no was the next best thing.

And if any theist wants to try and give me crap for having that opinion then said theist is more than welcome to try and prove first that any deities exist and next that there exists only one such deity, specifically the one described in the Bible. Until that happens, you're simply making wild assumptions based on personal desires and a vivid imagination. Why does that deserve any respect?
---
You want to try your hand at proving why genocide is inherently bad? - OrangeWizard
#110black spiderPosted 5/23/2013 10:19:57 AM
kozlo100 posted...
It doesn't have to be. Think of it like a series of math equations, as math is formal logic.
X = Y
X + Z
Does X = Y?

My math is somewhat rusty, but it seems to me that if one sees the above as math equations then X and Y were identical in line one, but then X is modified by +Z in line two while Y is unchanged. At that point, X = Y + Z.

Essentially, if we start out saying that God equals good and we then add baby-killing to God then we're left with the equation that God equals good plus baby-killing. But that doesn't tell us anything about the value of baby-killing, does it?
---
You want to try your hand at proving why genocide is inherently bad? - OrangeWizard