Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 127 (8774 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-21-2017 12:44 PM
389 online now:
DrJones*, JonF, NoNukes, PaulK, ringo, Tangle, Tanypteryx, Taq, vimesey, xongsmith (10 members, 379 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Tom Larkin
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 814,334 Year: 18,940/21,208 Month: 1,699/3,111 Week: 494/707 Day: 70/120 Hour: 1/15

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123456
7
8Next
Author Topic:   What to say if you met God/god/Gods/gods
ringo
Member
Posts: 13314
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 91 of 116 (800811)
02-28-2017 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Phat
02-28-2017 5:55 AM


Re: Rationale
Phat writes:

What you can't seem to grasp is that God by definition does get to define rationality, logic, reason, and reality itself.


But why? How can I grasp what you can't explain?

Phat writes:

What I will assert, however, is that humans don't have the ability to define God except as a lesser Being than themselves.


As I've said many times before, I'm using YOUR definition of God. YOU define Him as a lesser Being.

Phat writes:

My point is that GOD (The One who actually exists) is bigger than yours or my ability to define or to describe.


And yet you DID define God, giving Him the right to define rationality, logic, reason, and reality itself. How do you know that the "real GOD" doesn't define Himself as less than His creation?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Phat, posted 02-28-2017 5:55 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Phat, posted 02-28-2017 1:02 PM ringo has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 9490
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 92 of 116 (800815)
02-28-2017 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by ringo
02-28-2017 11:39 AM


Re: Rationale
ringo writes:

How do you know that the "real GOD" doesn't define Himself as less than His creation?

Well jar certainly seems to think so, so you may have a point.

I suppose if God was defined by a doting Jewish Mother He would be a teacher who allows his students to correct him so that they could learn to grow up, become ever increasingly responsible, and become good Doctors.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
"as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by ringo, posted 02-28-2017 11:39 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by ringo, posted 03-01-2017 2:16 PM Phat has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13314
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 93 of 116 (800870)
03-01-2017 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Phat
02-28-2017 1:02 PM


Re: Rationale
Phat writes:

I suppose if God was defined by a doting Jewish Mother He would be a teacher who allows his students to correct him so that they could learn to grow up, become ever increasingly responsible, and become good Doctors.


At least that would be a useful God.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Phat, posted 02-28-2017 1:02 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Phat, posted 03-01-2017 3:22 PM ringo has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 9490
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 94 of 116 (800882)
03-01-2017 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by ringo
03-01-2017 2:16 PM


Re: Rationale
God is not meant to be useful for humans. We are meant to be useful for God.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
"as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by ringo, posted 03-01-2017 2:16 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by ringo, posted 03-01-2017 3:26 PM Phat has responded
 Message 112 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-04-2017 11:20 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13314
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 95 of 116 (800884)
03-01-2017 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Phat
03-01-2017 3:22 PM


Re: Rationale
Phat writes:

God is not meant to be useful for humans. We are meant to be useful for God.


That's a good example of meaningless rhetoric. How could anything possibly be "useful" to God? What kind of puny weakling "god" would need to "use" us?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Phat, posted 03-01-2017 3:22 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Phat, posted 03-01-2017 4:24 PM ringo has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 9490
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 96 of 116 (800888)
03-01-2017 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by ringo
03-01-2017 3:26 PM


Re: Rationale
Its not that He needs to use us. H uses us for our benefit. He wants to use us.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
"as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by ringo, posted 03-01-2017 3:26 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by ringo, posted 03-02-2017 10:42 AM Phat has responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4600
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 97 of 116 (800890)
03-01-2017 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tangle
02-06-2015 9:24 AM


I remember hearing some of Fry's argument, which was basically an argument from outrage fallacy, which included the phrase, "how dare you" in regards to the sufferings of children in the third world, IIRC. In this example the relative moralist basically shouts or is outraged, almost like a mother of a murdered victim, and this gives the sense that the responder or the one who disagrees, is flustered and tends to feel GUILT to the point of silence. Usually this type of fallacy probably isn't intended or the person is not conscious that they are taking the position of being all-righteous, without proving they in fact are.

Of course intellectually this is absurd, so he can't be that smart, IMHO, because from the point of view of a person with a finite mind and a relative grasp of morality, how could that frame-of-reference be valid when questioning an omniscient God? So then a hidden assumption is that God isn't all knowing, and doesn't know what he is doing in allowing negative circumstances, which again, is patently absurd, intellectually for if He is God, how could He not be aware of such things and the reasons He has allowed them?

This basically means the recipient of the moral attack, is silent. As we know, God doesn't answer to puny humans, but nevertheless where an accused person cannot or will not give a defence, it is unfair to expect the absent party to automatically be deemed guilty, especially if that party has the ability to think on a far superior scale to the accuser but is silent.

This is always the problem with arguments from morality, if there is no real basis for morality to begin with then the argument fails, because to refute the argument you only need two words from the same equivalent, relative standpoint; "I disagree". Essentially Fry's argument was one of moral outrage, but with his atheist position, essentially he is sawing off the branch he is sitting on. That branch is, "morality". If the universe is an accident and there ultimately is no right or wrong objectively speaking, then how can you indict someone with wrongdoing, when that would only be your relative version of it? In other words to refute Fry I need two words; "I disagree".

Conclusion; it's easy to basically arguing from an outraged, self-righteous position, but logically the person that argues from this position assumes moral purity, and basically moral perfection, for if they are not perfect examples of righteousness, and their mind is not a perfectly all knowledgeable mind but a finite, limited one, then why should we listen to that particular persons subjective frame of reference?

Why for example, is a theists frame of reference of less worth? So then the whole thing becomes a matter of opinion.

As for explanations within the bible, the Christian God of the bible has given answers to some of the questions we may all ask, for example if there aren't consequences for a fallen world, and there are no negative effects, then what would that say about what the serpent said? It would suggest the serpent was correct, and God wrong, and that it would all be wonderful, so then from that perspective, theologically it makes sense that if mankind chooses a Godless path, that God is obliged to show the full horrific consequences of that sinful path. If the world was a paradise, that would then be God "okaying" the sinful nature.

But Fry's ignorance of the bible wouldn't have him think that far.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tangle, posted 02-06-2015 9:24 AM Tangle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-01-2017 5:57 PM mike the wiz has responded
 Message 104 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-02-2017 1:19 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 106 by Stile, posted 03-02-2017 10:16 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15946
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 98 of 116 (800892)
03-01-2017 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by mike the wiz
03-01-2017 5:23 PM


So, the old "mysterious ways" defense.

"I think Hitler is perfect. Now, you may object 'but what about the Holocaust?' But it is only imperfect people like you who think there's something wrong with the Holocaust. If you were perfect like Hitler you'd know that it was an excellent idea."

And so with the sort of intractably circular "reasoning" peddled by Mike you can defend any evil and elevate it as the supreme good.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by mike the wiz, posted 03-01-2017 5:23 PM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by mike the wiz, posted 03-01-2017 6:09 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4600
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 99 of 116 (800893)
03-01-2017 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Dr Adequate
03-01-2017 5:57 PM


Dr A writes:

So, the old "mysterious ways" defense.

A simplistic strawman fallacy.

DR A writes:

"I think Hitler is perfect. Now, you may object 'but what about the Holocaust?' But it is only imperfect people like you who think there's something wrong with the Holocaust. If you were perfect like Hitler you'd know that it was an excellent idea."

I don't see how this compares to anything I have said. You have committed begging-the-question if Hitler is supposed to be equated to God Almighty, in this example, and so when you say I, "defend evil" for example, under your atheist philosophy, evil would only be a relative term.

What is evil? Define evil under atheism. If the world is an accident, when someone murders you or I, this is the same as two rocks colliding, for two pieces of matter, one striking the other.

Did you even read my post? You can't have the term, "evil" on YOUR SIDE, under atheism, for that begs the question.

Who put you as the moraliser, EXCEPT YOU?

So I regard your post as absurd.

So then,

1. God is not Hitler. (an omniscient and omipotent God can't be compared to Hitler for starters, because what motivates a man does not motivate God.)
2. Evil doesn't exist under atheism.
3. You still use, "evil" and pretend that anyone not of your position is, "evil".

You can't have your cake and eat it. If evil doesn't exist then why are the things you say, "good" or, "moral"?

So then all I am saying is that when people accuse God, they tend to forget that He told mankind not to eat of the tree. Remember, God was correct, death and suffering an misery was absent in the garden.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-01-2017 5:57 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by jar, posted 03-01-2017 6:32 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 102 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-02-2017 12:57 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4600
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 100 of 116 (800895)
03-01-2017 6:26 PM


In reference to the kind of response to me of this nature; "you approve of evil, God done, evil, answer for it." I can't answer any questions that put atheists as the moral judge over me. As soon as I answer a question like that I DIGNIFY them assuming that position of moralising judge over me and God.

Basically there is an unspoken neurotic request by the atheist that if put into words would look like this; "mike, I am indicting you, now agree I am the moral judge by answering my questions, and my accusations."

It would be a sin for me to HELP YOU with your deception.

You may wish to read the first message I wrote in this thread to better understand the logical predicament you are in as atheists;

http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?/topic/6509...


Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-02-2017 1:05 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29137
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 101 of 116 (800896)
03-01-2017 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by mike the wiz
03-01-2017 6:09 PM


Three swings from Mike, three strikes.
mtw writes:

1. God is not Hitler. (an omniscient and omipotent God can't be compared to Hitler for starters, because what motivates a man does not motivate God.)

Actually according to the Bible stories what motivates the God character is exactly the same as what motivates humans; a need to show off,satisfaction with a job completed, to prove She has a bigger dick, a fit of pique, jealousy, fear ...

mtw writes:

2. Evil doesn't exist under atheism.

Of course evil can exist under any belief or non-belief system. Don't be silly. If the consensus of a community that some act is evil then that act is evil within that community.

It really is that simple. Of course even the most immoral evil acts were those committed by the God character in so many of the Bible stories.

mtw writes:

3. You still use, "evil" and pretend that anyone not of your position is, "evil".

Another really stupid comment that is simply not supported by reality. Many people not of my position are not evil. I may well think they are wrong but in many cases I will even go so far as to support their right to be wrong.

Edited by jar, : fix appalin spallin in sub-title


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by mike the wiz, posted 03-01-2017 6:09 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15946
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 102 of 116 (800916)
03-02-2017 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by mike the wiz
03-01-2017 6:09 PM


A simplistic strawman fallacy.

Did you have a reason for writing that bizarre jumble of words?

I don't see how this compares to anything I have said.

I can only give you a valid argument, I cannot give you the wits necessary to understand it.

What is evil? Define evil under atheism.

Hurting people would be a good first approximation.

If the world is an accident, when someone murders you or I, this is the same as two rocks colliding, for two pieces of matter, one striking the other.

Why would you say that? Clearly it is not the same: we can in fact distinguish between the two states.

Who put you as the moraliser, EXCEPT YOU?

Who put God as the moralizer?

1. God is not Hitler.

I never said he was.

(an omniscient and omipotent God can't be compared to Hitler for starters, because what motivates a man does not motivate God.)

Your apologetics for God can, however, be compared to apologetics for Hitler.

2. Evil doesn't exist under atheism.

Wrong.

3. You still use, "evil" and pretend that anyone not of your position is, "evil".

I pretend no such thing.

You can't have your cake and eat it. If evil doesn't exist ...

I'm not the one claiming that evil doesn't exist. You don't get to decide what my philosophy is. I can't have my cake if you eat it. Stop eating my cake.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by mike the wiz, posted 03-01-2017 6:09 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15946
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 103 of 116 (800917)
03-02-2017 1:05 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by mike the wiz
03-01-2017 6:26 PM


In reference to the kind of response to me of this nature; "you approve of evil, God done, evil, answer for it." I can't answer any questions that put atheists as the moral judge over me. As soon as I answer a question like that I DIGNIFY them assuming that position of moralising judge over me and God.
Basically there is an unspoken neurotic request by the atheist that if put into words would look like this; "mike, I am indicting you, now agree I am the moral judge by answering my questions, and my accusations."

It would be a sin for me to HELP YOU with your deception.

That's an interesting excuse for your failure to produce a coherent argument.

You may wish to read the first message I wrote in this thread to better understand the logical predicament you are in as atheists;

http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?/topic/6509...

What insane drivel. You seem to be saying that there can be no such thing as right or wrong unless justice will always be done.

Would you also say that there's no such thing as health or sickness unless medicine is always effective? No such thing as fat or thin unless dieting is always successful? No such thing as clever or stupid unless education uniformly makes people smart?

Besides which, I note that your argument is a heresy against Christian doctrine, which maintains that God bestows undeserved grace and redemption on people all of whom would deserve to go to Hell if justice were done. The Christian hope is in an unjust universe that is unjust in their favor. Do you want me to quote St. Paul at you?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix link in quote box. One must go to the raw text, not the truncated display version (OSLT).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by mike the wiz, posted 03-01-2017 6:26 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Phat, posted 03-02-2017 3:39 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15946
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.6


(3)
Message 104 of 116 (800918)
03-02-2017 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by mike the wiz
03-01-2017 5:23 PM


Let's post this again, it would be hard to improve on it.

---

Aztec: You should worship Tezcatlipoca.

Me: Why?

Aztec: Because he's infinitely good, and therefore worthy of worship.

Me: But doesn't he enjoin human sacrifice and ritual cannibalism on his followers?

Aztec: Oh, good, I see you've been reading up on him. What's your point?

Me: Well, isn't that kind of ... bad? And therefore in contradiction to your claim that he's infinitely good?

Aztec: But Tezcatlipoca wants human sacrifice and ritual cannibalism!

Me: That would be kind of my point. It seems to me that if he wants bad things, then (if he exists) he is himself bad.

Aztec: But since Tezcatlipoca wants these things, and since he is infinitely good, they can't possibly be bad things. So your argument fails.

---

Now, if you can see the problem with his reasoning, then please note that it holds up a mirror to yours.

In order for me to judge between various claims about the attributes of an infinitely good being, I have to stand outside the circle of reasoning that begins with the premise that the being in question is infinitely good --- and instead apply my own moral sense, imperfect though it may be, to those claims.

And, standing outside these charmed magical circles of reasoning, I see no reason why I should step inside any one of them. Why should I follow you round and round your magic circle rather than following the priest of Tezcatlipoca? How can I find your reasoning valid without finding his reasoning valid also?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by mike the wiz, posted 03-01-2017 5:23 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 9490
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 105 of 116 (800920)
03-02-2017 3:39 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Dr Adequate
03-02-2017 1:05 AM


Unjust Universe+Just God.
The Christian hope is in an unjust universe that is unjust in their favor.
Not sure I follow. God is our advocate, though an argument could be made that God allowed evil in the first place.

Perhaps we can define Christianity as a God who loves (and therefore favors) humanity. Satan was allowed to exist to temper(strengthen) our soul. We become the decisions we make. Err...does that make any sense? I'm speaking on the fly....


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
"as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-02-2017 1:05 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-02-2017 10:43 AM Phat has responded

  
Prev123456
7
8Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017