How can you call God immoral?

[bunny]

A question specifically to MidGe put also anyone else who might hold this view...

My conception of the God we are talking about is an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent creator who exists outside the physical universe. I also label myself a Christian (although I have been told I am not /images/graemlins/tongue.gif).

The argument came up in another thread that even if it were somehow demonstrated that God exists and sent his son in the form of Jesus to suffer for our sins, he is not deserving of worship due to being an immoral being who would subject his son to such a thing.

I cannot understand how you can hold this view as surely you can only judge whether the act is immoral or not against all the alternatives - an impossible judgement to make by any of us I would suggest. Given in this situation (hypothetical for you), God's existence is accepted - isnt the best explanation that he is indeed acting in a moral way as he is the only one able to consider all the alternatives and make that call? Having made the pronouncement that this was the only Good thing he could do to save humanity from ourselves - how could you argue the point and disagree with him?

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
My conception of the God we are talking about is an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent creator who exists outside the physical universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not disagree at all with your conception, but to me that is what it is, a concept. It has no bearing with the reality I observe, or, the words (the bible) I read that are attributed to him.

[ QUOTE ]
Given God's existence is accepted - isnt the best explanation that he is indeed acting in a moral way as he is the only one able to consider all the alternatives and make that call?

[/ QUOTE ]
It would be the best explanation, if I was not confronted with a reality that doesn't seem to mesh with the explanation. No,w bearing in mind that the explanation/proof I have for the concept is limited from what others have told me (that the bible is the word of god etc.. he never told me), the least, as a human being, that I could do would be to bring an element of doubt to the statement.

The real world as I see it (altough I have lived a relative privilged life) is full of suffering for no cause (other than god). I am talking about babes burning in fires, drowning in tsunami's, being sufficated in earthquakes, etc.. And I am just looking, for the purpose of this post, at babes that could not possibly have offended anyone (god included) in any way, altough it goes for other cases as well but perhaps not as poignantly.

To say, that all this is the result of the original sin of my ancestors does not seem in any way just or good. I do not know of any civilised society which would nowadays entertain that the guilt of a parent should be pushed and carried by its child.

The usual answer I get, is that god is too big for me to understand the reasons. Regardless, I still think that the rational position would be against god, even if only because of my limited undertsanding. It is, after all my humanity that allows me to empathise with others suffering. This seems to be the most rational, and human position albeit a heroic one. Not to stand up and be counted (against /images/graemlins/smile.gif ) is a bit like condonning a political leader inhumanity under the convenient pretext that he must know more and do right. I was hoodwinked this way the last time by my prime minister that justified going to war on the bais of real and imminent danger due to the existence of WMD.. The same applied to some european communities who did little if anything whilst a holocaust was going on... it is a matter of degrees... When I look at the suffering imposed by an omnipotence I am not going to join its ranks.

[ QUOTE ]
Having made the pronouncement that this was the only Good thing he could do to save humanity from ourselves

[/ QUOTE ]

"the only thing he could do" seems to contradict the concept of omnipotence, don't you think?


But I think all this can go a lot further and be analyzed in psychological terms as manifested by a large number of Christians when talking about Christianity, and others for other theists and prozelytizing religions.

The christian, in my mind extremely unhealthy, obssessions with symbols of violence and torture both representatively and in it's litterature. The overwhelming impression of a venfeful, magalomaniac partraying of the god in the bible. It's thirst for aknowledgemnet and submission. Interestingly the fundamental symbol is the crucifix, altough from my understanding, the key element of the faith is the resurrection. Crucifixions did abound in those days, resurrections didn't.


All of which are interestingly enough echoed in the hagiography of many christians denominations.

It seems that the only thing are the words "God is Love"... But, hey, those are words.. look at all the other descriptions of it... and look at the reality outside and within your life.

Last of all, I would have to add that most (not all) christian feel, by their tenet, as having to prozelytize. I think this fact is a key element that should not be forgotten. It gives the adherent a sense of superiority over the other "unenlightened" persons. It forces, in my opinion, an attempt at brainwashing which is not desired by the recipient, but reflects very much the mechanism by which growth of adherents is maximised: forceful and relentless attempt at persuasion by repetition of the message and the use of cognitive dissonance to re-enforce the belief once the victim is dropping its guard and takes the bait.

The only fortunate aspect of these, very, negative mechanisms, is that, a consequence of not being based on an absolute truth, their are many, many such groups all claiming unique rightness of their views. I think that is the only thing that may save humanity from an usurpation of the rational by the irrational. Note that, per se, I have nothing against the irrational. It has a place and can contribute, but I do object about the insinuating perniciousness obvious when it tries to usurp rationality, and find it very dangerous, when it attempts to do so in the moral arena.

That's a start...

[Lestat]

I agree with you, but probably from a different slant. If there is a God, then it's His unviverse and who are we to question Him? I also agree that we can't possibly know the whole picture or the mind of God.

However, there are many other arguments for the God protrayed in the bible as being immoral. And to be honest, I don't see how any Christian can overlook them when contemplating his or her faith. I was raised Catholic and almost from day 1, I had issues with many things.

Ordering a father to take his son up on a mountain and kill him in sacrifice. Other human sacrifices, wiping out the entire population of earth, killing all first borns of a group, condemming people to suffer in hell for eternity, demanding belief without any evidence (or be condemmed to gnash your teeth in fire and brimstone forever), etc. I could go on and on. To a mortal logical man, this does not appear to be a loving God at all, but a demanding tyrant and trickster.

Are you a father? Is there anything your child could do that would cause you to sentence him/her to a fiery hell for all of eternity? To me, it is perfectly understandable why logical people have a problem with this. Although I do not agree with MidGe's position either and have more to say on it. I might make a seperate post at a later date.

[Gobgogbog]

I don't understand how a concept of morality even makes sense here. Morality is societal construct, and a god wouldn't be human

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand how a concept of morality even makes sense here. Morality is societal construct, and a god wouldn't be human

[/ QUOTE ]
From within a theist world-view morality is not a societal construct but an inherent property of the universe. Either things are good because God says so and he defines good, or there are inherent good things and God's nature is such that he only wants good (depending on your theology - most christians would prefer the first interpretation).

Either way - within the contraints of this argument, morality is an absolute, not defined by humans.

[madnak]

I believe in my own morality. Not anyone else's. I know what happens when I deny what seems right to me in order to do what seems right to the people around me. And it's not good. Considering that Christianity feels very disturbing and awful to me, I don't believe it represents a morality I am interested in adhering to. Any "morality" that makes me feel bad about myself, the world, and God is a piss-poor morality IMO.

I don't believe that an omnibenevolent God is consistent with the world as it is. Also, God is omnipotent. He can't be limited by specific "alternatives." I would say that God, by definition, is never in the position of having to "choose the lesser evil." As an omnipotent being, he gets to "have his cake and eat it too." Regardless, the world is much too horrifying in general to be the construct of any benevolent being, I believe.

And that's to say nothing of hell.

So your assumptions are, in my view, internally inconsistent. Either that or your definition of "benevolent" is so far divorced from my own that the concepts are hardly even similar.

And I don't accept absolute morality. I trust my own morality. If God thinks torture and vengeance and jealousy are "good things," so be it. I don't care. I don't agree with Him, regardless of how "absolute" He is. I'm not sure I even have it in me.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">Either things are good because God says so and he defines good, or there are inherent good things and God's nature is such that he only wants good (depending on your theology - most christians would prefer the first interpretation). </font>

And which interpretation of "good" does God telling Abraham to burn and kill Isaac his only son fall into?

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]
How can you call God immoral?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's easy. "Hey God, you're immoral."

See? It's not that hard.

[chezlaw]

If there's a god who created some of us unable to believe in him without reason and provides no reason and then holds us responsible for not believing in him then by the sense of justice he created me with, I deem him immoral. If god exists then that's reasonable because he created me with this deeming things immoral function

However, its ridiculous. If there is a god then he wont expect those who he created unable to belive to believe. Its just some humans who cant stand people not agreeing with them and want them punished.

chez

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
If there is a god then he wont expect those who he created unable to belive to believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly.
The reasons to believe are readily displayed.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If there is a god then he wont expect those who he created unable to belive to believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly.
The reasons to believe are readily displayed.

[/ QUOTE ]
If god exists he understands why I think your wrong about that. If you care then use the search function.

chez

[Nielsio]

Suppose the guy in the fairy tale of the bible really existed and did all those things:

Do you love him because he is good or because he is powerful?

If you love him because he is good, then surely there is a way of knowing what is good outside of god.

If you love him because he is powerful, then you were psychologically or physically abused as a child and you can't judge your parents; in which case you will never be able to judge any power structure like god or the state.

If you are interested in a way of knowing what's good objectively, I can help you (easily). If you are in the other category I can't.

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
I think christianity is moral, sadly many christians disagree with me.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't.

[ QUOTE ]
If god exists he understands why I think your wrong about that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure he would if he exists too.

You have decided what it would take for you to believe, they are your choices. That you think these decisions are justified is unimportant. It's wether or not your decisions themselves are truly justified. Who are we to choose what it will take to follow God - if he exists?

The truth is he hasn't created you 'unable to believe', so you don't have an excuse.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
The truth is he hasn't created you 'unable to believe', so you don't have an excuse.


[/ QUOTE ]

Was that the first entry in the results from your Google search? lol

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think christianity is moral, sadly many christians disagree with me.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't.

[ QUOTE ]
If god exists he understands why I think your wrong about that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure he would if he exists too.

You have decided what it would take for you to believe, they are your choices. That you think these decisions are justified is unimportant. It's wether or not your decisions themselves are truly justified. Who are we to choose what it will take to follow God - if he exists?

The truth is he hasn't created you 'unable to believe', so you don't have an excuse.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its not a choice any more its my choice that I cant fly by flapping my arms. I appreciate that you cant understand this but that really your problem not mine.

chez

[godBoy]

You are capable of belief in God. So not believing is obviously your choice. Gravity says you can't fly. You have been given everything you need to be able to choose what to believe.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
You are capable of belief in God. So not believing is obviously your choice. Gravity says you can't fly. You have been given everything you need to be able to choose what to believe.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are wrong, I am not capable of believing something just like that. I appreciate you dont understand because you can believe anything you like without reason.

chez

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
You are capable of belief in God. So not believing is obviously your choice. Gravity says you can't fly. You have been given everything you need to be able to choose what to believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are capable of believing in unicorns, dragons and other chimeras. Ah... yes... you do.

[godBoy]

I can always count on you to raise the level of intellect.

I'm willing to take my chances with my non-unicorn beliefs.

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
You are wrong, I am not capable of believing something just like that. I appreciate you dont understand because you can believe anything you like without reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

No I can't - and I don't believe anyone can believe anything without reason. I'm not suggesting you just believe 'like that'.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are wrong, I am not capable of believing something just like that. I appreciate you dont understand because you can believe anything you like without reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

No I can't - and I don't believe anyone can believe anything without reason. I'm not suggesting you just believe 'like that'.

[/ QUOTE ]
Great, we agree then. So as I said several post ago:

If there's a god who created some of us unable to believe in him without reason and provides no reason and then holds us responsible for not believing in him then by the sense of justice he created me with, I deem him immoral. If god exists then that's reasonable because he created me with this deeming things immoral function

However, its ridiculous. If there is a god then he wont expect those who he created unable to belive to believe. Its just some humans who cant stand people not agreeing with them and want them punished.

chez

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
The usual answer I get, is that god is too big for me to understand the reasons. Regardless, I still think that the rational position would be against god. . .

[/ QUOTE ]
If a moral atheist is suddenly and irrefutably confronted with the existence of God (as described in the Bible), the only rational position to take would be that he has fundamentally misunderstood the nature of the universe. The only rational course of action would be to repent -- not because it's expedient, but because he was wrong.

If you're talking about some deity with whom you could disagree on moral grounds without lapsing into absurdity, then you're just not talking about the Judeo/Christian god in the first place.

[ QUOTE ]
This seems to be the most rational, and human position albeit a heroic one.

[/ QUOTE ]
But it's not heroic, because taking a position contrary to that of 'God' is necessarily immoral. He is the benevolent, omniscient creator, the arbiter of right and wrong, and the judge of the quick and the dead; if you wish to claim that he is not those things, then you are answering a different question. Again, there are only two possible interpretations of God according to the Bible: either Right and Wrong are products of God's judgement, or God invariably chooses Right. Either way, God is never wrong, by definition.

Rather than being heroic, opposing a Judeo/Christian God which you knew to exist would be the ultimate act of petty selfishness. It cannot be a case of standing up for what you believe to be right, becuase you've been confronted with undenible proof that you are wrong. Instead, it's a case of standing up for what you know to be wrong, because at least it's yours.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
The only rational course of action would be to repent -- not because it's expedient, but because he was wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why does being wrong require repentence? being wrong is not a sin.

and if a benevelent god reveals himself to me there's not likely to be a problem with that for anyone, why should there be?

However, if some powerful deity reveals himself to me then its meaningless to say they are benevelent by virtue of being god.

chez

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
Why does being wrong require repentence? being wrong is not a sin.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, but rejecting god is. You repent for being a heathen up until that point, and then move on.

[ QUOTE ]
and if a benevelent god reveals himself to me there's not likely to be a problem with that for anyone, why should there be?

[/ QUOTE ]
Apparently there'd be a problem for MidGe, who would choose damnation rather than admit he (she?) was wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
However, if some powerful deity reveals himself to me then its meaningless to say they are benevelent by virtue of being god.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course, but if the Judeo-Christian god revealed itself, you would know it was benevolent by virtue of its identity. That is (or should be) recognized as one of the posits of the hypothetical situation.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Given in this situation (hypothetical for you), God's existence is accepted - isnt the best explanation that he is indeed acting in a moral way as he is the only one able to consider all the alternatives and make that call?

[/ QUOTE ]
Read Job -- Heinlein's version. (Also, Small Gods by Terry Pratchett.)

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why does being wrong require repentence? being wrong is not a sin.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No, but rejecting god is. You repent for being a heathen up until that point, and then move on.


[/ QUOTE ]
I dont understand what you mean. I cant reject something I have no reason to believe in, If god reveals himself then I will start believing in him. There's nothing to repent.

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and if a benevelent god reveals himself to me there's not likely to be a problem with that for anyone, why should there be?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Apparently there'd be a problem for MidGe, who would choose damnation rather than admit he (she?) was wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]
Not if god is benevelent etc etc. Such a god would expect no less then we use to the best of our abilities the reasoning and moral facilities provided.

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, if some powerful deity reveals himself to me then its meaningless to say they are benevelent by virtue of being god.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Of course, but if the Judeo-Christian god revealed itself, you would know it was benevolent by virtue of its identity. That is (or should be) recognized as one of the posits of the hypothetical situation.

[/ QUOTE ]
The christian-judeo view of god is equally consistent with one that claims to be benevelent but isn't. No god that made me the way I am would punish me for not believing without reason or demand worship from me with threats.

chez

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont understand what you mean. I cant reject something I have no reason to believe in, If god reveals himself then I will start believing in him. There's nothing to repent.

[/ QUOTE ]
Apparently, the god of the Bible expects you to believe even with imperfect information (in other words, to have faith).

We may just be getting hung up about the meaning of the word "repent." In the hypothetical situation described, why wouldn't someone regret all the years that they were so far off the mark both philosophically and ethically?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Apparently there'd be a problem for MidGe, who would choose damnation rather than admit he (she?) was wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]Not if god is benevelent etc etc. Such a god would expect no less then we use to the best of our abilities the reasoning and moral facilities provided.

[/ QUOTE ]
You and I may be relativists, but God wouldn't be. In other words, not every mistake can be classified as being in good faith. If telling the omniscient creator -- whom you know to exist -- that your morality is superior to his isn't the quintessential act of hubris (as opposed to the "use to the best of our abilities [of] the reasoning and moral facilities provided"), then what is?

[ QUOTE ]
The christian-judeo view of god is equally consistent with one that claims to be benevelent but isn't.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think that's right. What purpose would god have for lying? And if he claims to be benevolent, then aren't his characterisics benevolent by definition?

[ QUOTE ]
No god that made me the way I am would punish me for not believing without reason or demand worship from me with threats.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why not? If, as in our hypothetical situation, you have been shown to be completely wrong about the fundamental nature of the universe and of morality, why would you expect your prior notions about some potential god you didn't even believe in to have been correct?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Apparently, the god of the Bible expects you to believe even with imperfect information (in other words, to have faith).

[/ QUOTE ]
but the all-powerful all-knowing benevelent god knows this isn't possible for many of us so the bible must be wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
We may just be getting hung up about the meaning of the word "repent." In the hypothetical situation described, why wouldn't someone regret all the years that they were so far off the mark both philosophically and ethically?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm always going to do my best to use the rational/ethical facilities provided. I always acknowledge that I may be wrong but there's no regret involved.

[ QUOTE ]
You and I may be relativists, but God wouldn't be. In other words, not every mistake can be classified as being in good faith. If telling the omniscient creator -- whom you know to exist -- that your morality is superior to his isn't the quintessential act of hubris (as opposed to the "use to the best of our abilities [of] the reasoning and moral facilities provided"), then what is?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not putting any morality above god's. If god exists then my morality is the one he created for me and I put that above everything else.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think that's right. What purpose would god have for lying? And if he claims to be benevolent, then aren't his characterisics benevolent by definition?

[/ QUOTE ]
I've no idea what god's purpose would be. I disagree that his claim for benevolence makes it so, as I explained if he punishes people for failing to believe in something he made them unable to believe in then he is not benevelent.

[ QUOTE ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No god that made me the way I am would punish me for not believing without reason or demand worship from me with threats.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Why not? If, as in our hypothetical situation, you have been shown to be completely wrong about the fundamental nature of the universe and of morality, why would you expect your prior notions about some potential god you didn't even believe in to have been correct?

[/ QUOTE ]
because its not benevelent.

chez

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How can you call God immoral?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's easy. "Hey God, you're immoral."

See? It's not that hard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks! Can't believe I missed that... Doh! /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
I've no idea what god's purpose would be. I disagree that his claim for benevolence makes it so, as I explained if he punishes people for failing to believe in something he made them unable to believe in then he is not benevelent.

[/ QUOTE ]
Instead of god's being wrong and/or dishonest about his own nature and, by extension, that of the entire universe, wouldn't it be more likely that he did not, in fact, make anyone incapable of believing in his benevolence?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've no idea what god's purpose would be. I disagree that his claim for benevolence makes it so, as I explained if he punishes people for failing to believe in something he made them unable to believe in then he is not benevelent.

[/ QUOTE ]
Instead of god's being wrong and/or dishonest about his own nature and, by extension, that of the entire universe, wouldn't it be more likely that he did not, in fact, make anyone incapable of believing in his benevolence?

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree which is why even if god exists he is unlikely to be the nasty god believed in by some. He wont punish those unable to believe without reason and he wont demand worship on pain of damnation.

chez

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
I do not disagree at all with your conception, but to me that is what it is, a concept. It has no bearing with the reality I observe, or, the words (the bible) I read that are attributed to him.

[ QUOTE ]
Given God's existence is accepted - isnt the best explanation that he is indeed acting in a moral way as he is the only one able to consider all the alternatives and make that call?

[/ QUOTE ]
It would be the best explanation, if I was not confronted with a reality that doesn't seem to mesh with the explanation.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I was interested in when beginning this thread was my understanding that you would consider God immoral, even if you received proof of his existence. Thus, my scenario is asking you to imagine reality fairly different from how you observe it now.

[ QUOTE ]
No,w bearing in mind that the explanation/proof I have for the concept is limited from what others have told me (that the bible is the word of god etc.. he never told me), the least, as a human being, that I could do would be to bring an element of doubt to the statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree - I believe we have a moral resposibility to try and do the right thing and in this context, it would be wrong to accept such a claim just cos someone told you to.

[ QUOTE ]
The real world as I see it (altough I have lived a relative privilged life) is full of suffering for no cause (other than god). I am talking about babes burning in fires, drowning in tsunami's, being sufficated in earthquakes, etc.. And I am just looking, for the purpose of this post, at babes that could not possibly have offended anyone (god included) in any way, altough it goes for other cases as well but perhaps not as poignantly.

To say, that all this is the result of the original sin of my ancestors does not seem in any way just or good. I do not know of any civilised society which would nowadays entertain that the guilt of a parent should be pushed and carried by its child.

The usual answer I get, is that god is too big for me to understand the reasons.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem of evil is definitely the most difficult for us theists to explain, in my opinion. I would make the point that God is too big for you to understand (remembering that this whole post is predicated on you having received undeniable proof of his existence) but agree that this explanation of evil is not going to be very persuasive to a non-believer. The only claim I would make is that it is internally consistent.

Another (less compelling imo) argument is that God is doing the best that is possible. I made reference to this in the original post regarding sacrificing his son - perhaps he had no choice and this was the most moral of a whole bunch of terrible options. One comment you made was

[ QUOTE ]
"the only thing he could do" seems to contradict the concept of omnipotence, don't you think?

[/ QUOTE ]

and my answer is no. I do not understand omnipotence to mean "Able to do everything" - this is also a commonly held theological position. When I claim omnipotence for God I dont mean he can do things that are logically inconsistent as these are meaningless in my opinion. Thus I dont believe God can draw a square circle, or make a rock so heavy he cant lift it, etc etc. In my view concepts like this are meaningless - you may as well say "Can God motorcar lemon square root?" It doesnt mean anything. (Diverging into theology momentarily, there are various debates about whether God has created the laws of logic and then chosen to abide by them, whether he could break them if he wanted to but this would be against his nature, etc, etc...these arguments range from the brilliant to the ridiculous imo but nonetheless it is widely held by theists that being omnipotent does not mean something as simple as "able to do anything").

Thus, the idea that there are unimaginably large and complicated restraints on the amount of "net good" in the world is not inconsistent with an omnipotent God. Perhaps there are reasons (we certainly shouldnt be surprised if we cant understand them) - certainly, if we received proof of God's existence through other means and were in no doubt of that fact...it seems reasonable to believe him when he says "Trust me...you just wouldnt understand".

The third reason I would mention for the existence of "natural evils" is the existence of "secondary goods". The claim is that a huge amount of what we consider good can only exist given there is suffering in the world. For example, we would not feel compassion or sympathy if nobody ever suffered or experienced loss - how could we? This defense claims that the suffering in the world is a bad thing, yes, but it brings about many more good things and so is the morally right way to construct the universe. Again, I would claim this is a consistent position, I am not trying to persuade an atheist, merely claiming that if you received proof outside of the realm of ethics for God, it would make good sense to trust him in this sphere.

[ QUOTE ]
Regardless, I still think that the rational position would be against god, even if only because of my limited undertsanding. It is, after all my humanity that allows me to empathise with others suffering. This seems to be the most rational, and human position albeit a heroic one. Not to stand up and be counted (against /images/graemlins/smile.gif ) is a bit like condonning a political leader inhumanity under the convenient pretext that he must know more and do right. I was hoodwinked this way the last time by my prime minister that justified going to war on the bais of real and imminent danger due to the existence of WMD.. The same applied to some european communities who did little if anything whilst a holocaust was going on... it is a matter of degrees... When I look at the suffering imposed by an omnipotence I am not going to join its ranks.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is the correct moral view if you reject God's existence. I still wonder how you could hold this view if his existence was beyond question. It seems arrogant to me, almost like saying "Well he may think this is OK but I know better."




[ QUOTE ]
But I think all this can go a lot further and be analyzed in psychological terms as manifested by a large number of Christians when talking about Christianity, and others for other theists and prozelytizing religions.

The christian, in my mind extremely unhealthy, obssessions with symbols of violence and torture both representatively and in it's litterature. The overwhelming impression of a venfeful, magalomaniac partraying of the god in the bible. It's thirst for aknowledgemnet and submission. Interestingly the fundamental symbol is the crucifix, altough from my understanding, the key element of the faith is the resurrection. Crucifixions did abound in those days, resurrections didn't.


All of which are interestingly enough echoed in the hagiography of many christians denominations.

It seems that the only thing are the words "God is Love"... But, hey, those are words.. look at all the other descriptions of it... and look at the reality outside and within your life.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not something I feel very qualified to talk about. The argument is not compelling to me, though I'm not sure why. My first stab at a response (if you can forgive the violent language /images/graemlins/tongue.gif) would be that I believe the church has evolved within the cultures that exist on earth. I think it has also been guided by its members and leaders through the centuries. Most of that time, life has been pretty bleak imo. There has been lots of death, violence, struggle, etc and so I think those symbols have perhaps been overemphasised. I dont find this upsetting as I feel the message overall is one that love and peace will ultimately triumph, admittedly after a struggle.

[ QUOTE ]
Last of all, I would have to add that most (not all) christian feel, by their tenet, as having to prozelytize. I think this fact is a key element that should not be forgotten. It gives the adherent a sense of superiority over the other "unenlightened" persons. It forces, in my opinion, an attempt at brainwashing which is not desired by the recipient, but reflects very much the mechanism by which growth of adherents is maximised: forceful and relentless attempt at persuasion by repetition of the message and the use of cognitive dissonance to re-enforce the belief once the victim is dropping its guard and takes the bait.

[/ QUOTE ]

I share your distaste for evangelicism although I feel it is a misguided attempt (which I find very understandable) rather than an immoral act. It also doesnt seem fair to label God immoral for the actions of his believers.

[ QUOTE ]
The only fortunate aspect of these, very, negative mechanisms, is that, a consequence of not being based on an absolute truth, their are many, many such groups all claiming unique rightness of their views. I think that is the only thing that may save humanity from an usurpation of the rational by the irrational. Note that, per se, I have nothing against the irrational. It has a place and can contribute, but I do object about the insinuating perniciousness obvious when it tries to usurp rationality, and find it very dangerous, when it attempts to do so in the moral arena.

[/ QUOTE ]

I cant conceive of a purely rational morality. Ultimately, I think you have to "make a start" based on some intuition or feeling of "what's right". I think rationality comes later in trying to apply those intuitions to more complicated scenarios. Nonetheless, I think we may be diametrically opposed here - I find it scary to think of rationality trying to usurp what I see as the role of the irrational! /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[ QUOTE ]
That's a start...

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the reply

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with you, but probably from a different slant. If there is a God, then it's His unviverse and who are we to question Him? I also agree that we can't possibly know the whole picture or the mind of God.

However, there are many other arguments for the God protrayed in the bible as being immoral. And to be honest, I don't see how any Christian can overlook them when contemplating his or her faith. I was raised Catholic and almost from day 1, I had issues with many things.

Ordering a father to take his son up on a mountain and kill him in sacrifice. Other human sacrifices, wiping out the entire population of earth, killing all first borns of a group, condemming people to suffer in hell for eternity, demanding belief without any evidence (or be condemmed to gnash your teeth in fire and brimstone forever), etc. I could go on and on. To a mortal logical man, this does not appear to be a loving God at all, but a demanding tyrant and trickster.

Are you a father? Is there anything your child could do that would cause you to sentence him/her to a fiery hell for all of eternity? To me, it is perfectly understandable why logical people have a problem with this. Although I do not agree with MidGe's position either and have more to say on it. I might make a seperate post at a later date.

[/ QUOTE ]

I for one would be interested to hear your position. In this thread I was more concerned with what you would think if you had iron-clad, irrefutable proof that God exists - from outside of the realm of ethics. I struggle to comprehend how anyone could question him then.

The problem of evil is the achilles heel of the theist position in my opinion. Although, clearly, I think it is not impossible to answer it - it seems to me to be the hardest challenge we have to address.

[BCPVP]

For those who think God is immoral because evil exists... (http://www.carm.org/40_objections/40-4.htm#_1_31)

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">Either things are good because God says so and he defines good, or there are inherent good things and God's nature is such that he only wants good (depending on your theology - most christians would prefer the first interpretation). </font>

And which interpretation of "good" does God telling Abraham to burn and kill Isaac his only son fall into?

[/ QUOTE ]

The first one - God says it so it's good.

[MidGe]

BCPVP,

The article you qute is from the propaganda machine known as the "Christian Apologetics &amp; Research Ministry".


I did start to reply and read it, till it lost all credibility for me. Here is quotes from the article (in italics) and my answers:

Why is there evil and suffering in the world?
A.The question implies that if a good God exists, then evil shouldn't because God being all powerful should stop it.

No, not only because he is all powerful but because he is benevolent and should not enjoy/tolerate the suffering of his creatures.

B.We need to ask and answer two questions. First, what is evil? It is that which is against God. It is anything morally bad or wrong. It is injurious, depraved, wicked. Some acceptable examples might be murder, rape, stealing, lying, and cheating. Second, if we want God to stop evil do we want Him to stop all evil or just some of it? In other words, if just some of it then why? If He were to stop only part of the evil, then we would still be asking the question, "Why is there evil in the world?".
Let's suppose that someone was about to commit murder. God would have to stop him, maybe whisper in his ear, or if that didn't work do something a little more drastic like have something fall on him, or stop his heart, or make his hands suddenly fall off. Anyway, God would have to do something.
What if somebody wanted to steal? God would have to stop him too, right? Undoubtedly, God's imagination would permit a more practical method than I have suggested, but the end results would be the same.
What about lying? If someone were to tell a lie, then to be consistent wouldn't you want God right there to stop that person from lying? After all, He couldn't let any evil occur could He?
Let's take it a step further. Suppose someone thought something evil. Then, of course, God would have to step in and prevent him from thinking anything bad at all, right? The end result would be that God could not allow anyone to think freely. Since everyone thinks and no one thinks only pure thoughts, God would be pretty busy and we wouldn't be able to think. Anyway, at what point do we stop, at the murder level, stealing level, lying level, or thinking level? As your questions implies, if you want God to stop evil, you would have to be consistent and want Him to do it everywhere all the time, not just pick and choose. It wouldn't work.
Evil is in this world partly because we give it its place but ultimately because God, in His sovereignty, permits it and keeps it under His control.
Then you might say, "Couldn't He just make us perfect and that way we wouldn't sin?" He already did that. He made a perfect angel, Satan, but he sinned. He made a perfect man, Adam, and he sinned. He made a perfect woman, Eve, and she sinned. God knows what He is doing. He made us the way we are for a purpose. We don't fully understand that purpose, but He does.

This is again, avoiding and changing the question. We are not talking about evil committed by other humans, but the evil found in nature, where innocent days old or months old babies are burned to death in natural fires, drown in tsunamis, suffocate in earthquakes, in incredible pains.

C.God is sovereign; He has the right to do as He wishes. He has the right to permit evil for accomplishing His ultimate will. How can He do that? Simple, look at the cross. It was by evil means that men lied and crucified Jesus. Yet God in His infinite wisdom used this evil for good. It was on the cross that Jesus bore our sins in His body (1 Peter. 2:24) and it is because of the cross that we can have forgiveness of sins.

That is the very immorality of god. To inflict a condition that is painful and then make it better seems a vary sado-masochistic concept. Again a pointer to the immorality of god.


D.Consider the biblical example of Joseph in the Old Testament. He was sold into slavery by his brothers. Though they meant it for evil, God meant it for good (Gen. 50:20). God is so great that nothing happens without His permission, and in that permission His ultimate plan unfolds. In His plan He is able to use for good what man intends for evil. God is in control.

Not only is he in control, but he is directly responsible, as you infer.

I skip some of the questions in that article and come to the point where the manipulation of truth becomes so obvious that, the entire article loose whatever credibility it had left, if any.


All religions are different paths to the same place.
A.If all religions are different paths to the same place then why do the paths contradict each other? Does truth contradict itself? Let's review the teachings of just three religions:
B.Buddhism is pantheistic and says there is no personal God and everyone can reach Godlikeness on his own. Islam says that Jesus was just a prophet and not the only way to God. Christianity says that there is a personal God and that the only way to Him is through Jesus (John 14:6). If these three religions are, as you say, different paths to the same place, then why do they contradict each other? Does truth contradict itself?

This is an outright lie and misrepresentation. Buddhism is not pantheistic it is atheistic. It never says that people can reach godlikeness but that people are capable of eradicating hate greed and ignorance (presumptions) from their psychology. This really shows how open minded the author has been about other religions.

From this point on, I realised the whole paper was a propaganda document telling christians how to answer vexing questions about their religion by avoidance, evasiveness and misrepresentation. It has liitle to do with truth but a lot about how to psychologically hook vulnerable minds to share the authors own pathetic view about what is moral or not.

[MidGe]

bunny,

[ QUOTE ]
What I was interested in when beginning this thread was my understanding that you would consider God immoral, even if you received proof of his existence. Thus, my scenario is asking you to imagine reality fairly different from how you observe it now.

[/ QUOTE ]

My response to god, if he exist, is to find him immoral because of the experience of life I have. Now, are you asking me to imagine life differently and then what would be my reaction towards god? That doesn't make much sense... Of course, if life was beautiful, there would be no suffering etc.. I would not find god immoral.

[ QUOTE ]
I agree - I believe we have a moral resposibility to try and do the right thing and in this context, it would be wrong to accept such a claim just cos someone told you to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good we agree that it should be so with or without god's existence. It is precisely this inquiry that brought me to the conclusion that god was immoral and therefore probably did not exists.


[ QUOTE ]
The problem of evil is definitely the most difficult for us theists to explain, in my opinion. I would make the point that God is too big for you to understand (remembering that this whole post is predicated on you having received undeniable proof of his existence) but agree that this explanation of evil is not going to be very persuasive to a non-believer. The only claim I would make is that it is internally consistent.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I say, that should you get iron clad evidence about the existence of God, the only truly human (ie aware and able to empathise with other humans) reaction would be to side against god and recognise the reality rather the attributed concept of benevolence (which is all it is), the facts don't change.

[ QUOTE ]
I do not understand omnipotence to mean "Able to do everything" - this is also a commonly held theological position. When I claim omnipotence for God I dont mean he can do things that are logically inconsistent as these are meaningless in my opinion. Thus I dont believe God can draw a square circle, or make a rock so heavy he cant lift it, etc etc. In my view concepts like this are meaningless - you may as well say "Can God motorcar lemon square root?" It doesnt mean anything. (Diverging into theology momentarily, there are various debates about whether God has created the laws of logic and then chosen to abide by them, whether he could break them if he wanted to but this would be against his nature, etc, etc...these arguments range from the brilliant to the ridiculous imo but nonetheless it is widely held by theists that being omnipotent does not mean something as simple as "able to do anything").

[/ QUOTE ]

No omnipotence does not need include the impossible, but it entails a responsibility for the results of one's omnipotence. I mean even if the suffering was justified because the after life would be sooooo good, why does it need be paired with a seemingly inability to demonstrate or present himself (which according to the bible, he can, could, has done). Or has he lost it's powers?

[ QUOTE ]
it seems reasonable to believe him when he says "Trust me...you just wouldnt understand".

[/ QUOTE ]

Not from my viewpoint... Just another trick /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
It seems arrogant to me, almost like saying "Well he may think this is OK but I know better."

[/ QUOTE ]

Arrogant, but humane. I may not know better but the best I have is to respond to, or allow the flowering of, my good humane impulses of empathies, aversion to suffering etc...

[ QUOTE ]
I dont find this upsetting as I feel the message overall is one that love and peace will ultimately triumph, admittedly after a struggle.

[/ QUOTE ]

You may feel so, and parts of the message may be excellent, but the message doesn't fit the facts!

[ QUOTE ]
I cant conceive of a purely rational morality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Neither can I, and unlike many christians it seems, I do act morally without the threat of damnation hanging over my head. Maybe not every one is equipped with these tendencies. /images/graemlins/smile.gif


Kind regards

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've no idea what god's purpose would be. I disagree that his claim for benevolence makes it so, as I explained if he punishes people for failing to believe in something he made them unable to believe in then he is not benevelent.

[/ QUOTE ]
Instead of god's being wrong and/or dishonest about his own nature and, by extension, that of the entire universe, wouldn't it be more likely that he did not, in fact, make anyone incapable of believing in his benevolence?

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree which is why even if god exists he is unlikely to be the nasty god believed in by some. He wont punish those unable to believe without reason and he wont demand worship on pain of damnation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I also believe that, if god exists, he would not have those characteristics. However, that's not what I'm talking about.

Suppose that you knew for certain that God existed, and that he was as described in the Old and New Testaments. He does expect loyalty, and does punish the unbelievers. I'm saying that, in such a case, it would be absurd to reject him on moral grounds. The closest you can come is to choose hell out of spite (or, perhaps, out of extreme confusion).

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've no idea what god's purpose would be. I disagree that his claim for benevolence makes it so, as I explained if he punishes people for failing to believe in something he made them unable to believe in then he is not benevelent.

[/ QUOTE ]
Instead of god's being wrong and/or dishonest about his own nature and, by extension, that of the entire universe, wouldn't it be more likely that he did not, in fact, make anyone incapable of believing in his benevolence?

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree which is why even if god exists he is unlikely to be the nasty god believed in by some. He wont punish those unable to believe without reason and he wont demand worship on pain of damnation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I also believe that, if god exists, he would not have those characteristics. However, that's not what I'm talking about.

Suppose that you knew for certain that God existed, and that he was as described in the Old and New Testaments. He does expect loyalty, and does punish the unbelievers. I'm saying that, in such a case, it would be absurd to reject him on moral grounds. The closest you can come is to choose hell out of spite (or, perhaps, out of extreme confusion).

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know what you mean by reject. I'd have no choice but to accept the reality but that god would not be benevelent.

chez

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
This is an outright lie and misrepresentation. Buddhism is not pantheistic it is atheistic. It never says that people can reach godlikeness but that people are capable of eradicating hate greed and ignorance (presumptions) from their psychology. This really shows how open minded the author has been about other religions.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a gross oversimplification. "Buddhism" can be thought of as pantheistic, atheistic, or neither, depending on which branch you're talking about and how you want to go about shoehorning Eastern modes of thought into Western modes of expression.

I haven't looked at the linked page, but surely we can forgive the author for his tangential oversimplification.

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know what you mean by reject.

[/ QUOTE ]
To refuse to praise. To refuse to acknowledge him as a being worthy of praise and respect.

[ QUOTE ]
I'd have no choice but to accept the reality but that god would not be benevelent.

[/ QUOTE ]
He would not fit with our prior notions of benevolence. However, given what we've just learned about the universe, we would know that the truth in this case is a matter of objective fact, not subjective opinion. Further, given what we know about this god -- that he is the omniscient creator, arbiter of right and wrong, etc. -- we would know that he could not be wrong. Where we disagree with this god, we are necessarily and by definition wrong. The only reasonable alternative is to accept that we were mistaken about the nature of benevolence.

Besides, how much weight should your prior notions of benevolence be given if they were based on an understanding of existence that you've discovered to be fundamentally flawed?

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
This is a gross oversimplification. "Buddhism" can be thought of as pantheistic, atheistic, neither, or both, depending on which branch you're talking about and how you want to go about shoehorning Eastern modes of thought into Western modes of expression.

I haven't looked at the linked page, but surely we can forgive the author for his tangential oversimplification.

[/ QUOTE ]

Buddhism can be thought of as anything. The facts are, that by agreement between all sects, traditions etc.. (except for some very recent new age type cults) the acceptance of the three charcacteristics of existence is what determine whether a doctrine is "Buddhist" or not. These do not posit the existence of any god or supreme being, rather the opposite.

As for forgetting the auhor "tangential oversimplification", not if the rest of the article works in a simular way, distorting meaning of questions to give the appearance of an answer... etc... pure propaganda techniques.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know what you mean by reject.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


To refuse to praise. To refuse to acknowledge him as a being worthy of praise and respect.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sounds like your talking about actions and being cowardly I might well comply. However I could not hide by revulsuion from him and cannot help but being revolted at a being who demands worship on pain of damnation.

[ QUOTE ]
He would not fit with our prior notions of benevolence. However, given what we've just learned about the universe, we would know that the truth in this case is a matter of objective fact, not subjective opinion. Further, given what we know about this god -- that he is the omniscient creator, arbiter of right and wrong, etc. -- we would know that he could not be wrong. Where we disagree with this god, we are necessarily and by definition wrong. The only reasonable alternative is to accept that we were mistaken about the nature of benevolence.

[/ QUOTE ]
If god speaks in voice and tells me something that contradicts what he tells be my the moral sense he gave me then there is a real problem that is not resolved by saying that god is right by definition. To be clear:

god tells me that demanding worship on pain of damnation is wrong via the moral sense I experience.

god demands worship on pain of damnation via words.

and

god tells me in words to ignore my moral sense

god tells me via the moral sense to ignore the words.

Which of gods messages should take priority. Again, the whole thing is nonsense - if a benevelent god exists then the two will match.

chez

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
If god speaks in voice and tells me something that contradicts what he tells be my the moral sense he gave me then there is a real problem that is not resolved by saying that god is right by definition. To be clear:

god tells me that demanding worship on pain of damnation is wrong via the moral sense I experience.

god demands worship on pain of damnation via words.

and

god tells me in words to ignore my moral sense

god tells me via the moral sense to ignore the words.

Which of gods messages should take priority. Again, the whole thing is nonsense - if a benevelent god exists then the two will match.

[/ QUOTE ]
By your logic, if a benevolent god exists, then his words would match with everyone's moral sense. Unless everyone's moral sense is identical, or god is schizophrenic, this is impossible.

Obviously, the problem is that, in this scenario, god isn't telling you anything from your moral sense. I don't know why we would assume otherwise in the first place.

[nepenthe]

I'm no Christian, but VarlosZ is clearly correct here. What matters is God's words, not anything that can be sensed via your morality or lack thereof.

[nepenthe]

And really, this entire hypothesis is based on an impossible premise, because the day that the God of the Bible incontrovertibly shows Himself to be real to all mankind on this planet, is the day that a pivotal aspect of free will ends as it applies to God.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm no Christian, but VarlosZ is clearly correct here. What matters is God's words, not anything that can be sensed via your morality or lack thereof.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only problem is that you do not know which, if any, are gods words unless you suspend your disbelief, and then it is sheer luck whether you have the right words or not, given the competing claims.

I disbelieve that there is a god, because, the fruits or consequences of himself, if he is the cause, are morally objectionable. Suffering is no joke! I'd much rather believe that there is not god than having to experience the despair I would definitely experience, did I think some over powerful entity had to be responsible for the totally unintelligent design that I see all around me.

[nepenthe]

I was merely going with the hypothetical and saying that if God of the Bible were to somehow appear right before you, He'd be perfectly capable of telling you in so many words what His words mean, have always meant, and will always mean, in a way that would leave no more doubt in one's mind. And by the time this putrid fallaciousness (even within the Christian frame of reference) would happen, I'm sure He could also reroute your brain and turn your mother into a virgin. The horror, the..

[madnak]

Here's what I'm getting out of your arguments.

My premise is that God is moral. Therefore God can't be immoral.

If your underlying assumptions imply the morality of God, then obviously I can't accept those assumptions and simultaneously dispute the morality of God. That's pointless

Bunny, based on the alterations you've made to your original premises it seems that you are doing something similar. You say that morality is absolute for the purposes of discussion, and is defined by God. In other words, you are defining morality in such a way that God is moral by definition. Then, once you've constructed this straw man, you're asking how we can think God is immoral.

Obviously, if God is moral by definition, and I know it, then I can't think he's immoral. That is tautological and 100% meaningless. If you want to learn something about the perspective of the atheists, you're really going to have to give us some wiggling room.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's what I'm getting out of your arguments.

My premise is that God is moral. Therefore God can't be immoral.

If your underlying assumptions imply the morality of God, then obviously I can't accept those assumptions and simultaneously dispute the morality of God. That's pointless

Bunny, based on the alterations you've made to your original premises it seems that you are doing something similar. You say that morality is absolute for the purposes of discussion, and is defined by God. In other words, you are defining morality in such a way that God is moral by definition. Then, once you've constructed this straw man, you're asking how we can think God is immoral.

Obviously, if God is moral by definition, and I know it, then I can't think he's immoral. That is tautological and 100% meaningless. If you want to learn something about the perspective of the atheists, you're really going to have to give us some wiggling room.

[/ QUOTE ]

I havent made myself clear - I did answer someone's post who claimed that morality was not absolute and I answered with the traditional theist answer. That was something of a distraction and I apologise for the confusion.

My original premise was (and remains) as you imply it was - if you believed in God's existence (as omnipotent, omniscient creator) through some argument other than a moral one. Would you then still maintain he was immoral, or would you accept his word that he is moral?

I agree that asking you to hypothesise the existence of God (including the benevolence) then saying Ahah! he is benevolent is circular and not particularly valuable. Apologies again for the confusion.

[madnak]

Okay, sounds good. In that case I stand by my earlier response.

[LAST_ONE_LEFT]

I think the old testament is a story in which a man must identify on his own what is good and evil. I think this is true by an example of when "God" telling Abraham to burn and kill Isaac his only son and a force of goodness is attempting to stop him. I honestly think that God would never want anyone to sacrafice a child or anything of that matter to prove his faith.

In addition "god" comes to Abraham and asks if he wants the his villan's city destructed, Abraham answers that he does not think it is a good idea because a lot of innocent people will die. Again I dont see how a good "god" will ever want destruction apon anyone.

So I think the Old Testament teaches 2 lessons, the first lesson is that you should evaluate on your own as to what you think is right and wrong, and the second lesson the Old testament teaches is to not fall preditor to deceiption.
What i mean by deception is how evil will try to represent itself in a way to make man beleive that in reality it is good and rightious.


The New Testament in my opinion is also a story about good and evil but a little more explicit then the Old Testament, it is much easier to identify what is right and wrong. None the less it is still mans responsilitiy to identify what he thinks is right and wrong in his heart.


"Sometimes I wonder if the word of god is lost in a man"

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
If your underlying assumptions imply the morality of God, then obviously I can't accept those assumptions and simultaneously dispute the morality of God.

[/ QUOTE ]
So one would think, yet, here we are.

[ QUOTE ]
Here's what I'm getting out of your arguments.

My premise is that God is moral. Therefore God can't be immoral.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm talking specifically about the god of the Old and New Testaments: the foundation of the universe, omnipotent, omniscient and, yes, omnibenevolent.

If you remove 'omnibenevolent' from that description, there is a little wiggle room -- maybe god is lying about what is right and wrong, maybe there is no objective moral standard, etc.

OTOH, has the situation significantly changed? We're still faced with the omnipotent, omniscient creator of the universe. Even if we don't necessarily know that he is all loving, we have to acknowledge that his other traits make his a uniquely authoritative voice on the nature of right and wrong. If he claims to be benevolent, then all you're left with if you reject him is the hope that he's lying (since he's omniscient and can't be mistaken), which seems plausible but exceedingly unlikely.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
The article you qute is from the propaganda machine known as the "Christian Apologetics &amp; Research Ministry".

[/ QUOTE ]
Thank God you told me where the source I posted came from. I would never have known.

[ QUOTE ]
No, not only because he is all powerful but because he is benevolent and should not enjoy/tolerate the suffering of his creatures.

[/ QUOTE ]
Who says he enjoys the suffering of his creatures? Do most parents enjoy spanking their children?

As for tolerating that starts to get into the realm of God controlling everything so that we may lead perfectly safe lives, which we already forsaked (Garden of Eden).

[ QUOTE ]
This is again, avoiding and changing the question. We are not talking about evil committed by other humans, but the evil found in nature, where innocent days old or months old babies are burned to death in natural fires, drown in tsunamis, suffocate in earthquakes, in incredible pains.

[/ QUOTE ]
How is what you describe "evil"? Evil seems to imply intent. What intent does a fire or earthquake have? I think these things are tragedies, not evil.

[ QUOTE ]
That is the very immorality of god. To inflict a condition that is painful and then make it better seems a vary sado-masochistic concept. Again a pointer to the immorality of god.

[/ QUOTE ]
God cannot be immoral. He is the definition of moral and to be otherwise would be to contradict himself and his nature.

Below the objection after the one I posted, is a response to the "why did jesus have to die" question. Perhaps you should read it.

[ QUOTE ]
This is an outright lie and misrepresentation. Buddhism is not pantheistic it is atheistic. It never says that people can reach godlikeness but that people are capable of eradicating hate greed and ignorance (presumptions) from their psychology. This really shows how open minded the author has been about other religions.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think he might have meant Hinduism. Ravi Zacharias (a Christian apologist) has commented on the contradictory nature of hinduism and used a very similiar arguement (that one Hindu can claim that god is impersonal and another can claim that god is personal and both would be right).

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Who says he enjoys the suffering of his creatures? Do most parents enjoy spanking their children?

As for tolerating that starts to get into the realm of God controlling everything so that we may lead perfectly safe lives, which we already forsaked (Garden of Eden).

[/ QUOTE ]

Uhhh! To me spanking his an illegal act. I don't know where the law stands in the US.

I did not forsake anything... eden or otherwise. You mean my ancestors did and I wear the effect. Nice sense of justice.


[ QUOTE ]
How is what you describe "evil"? Evil seems to imply intent. What intent does a fire or earthquake have? I think these things are tragedies, not evil.

[/ QUOTE ]

Reagarding earthquakes.. you could equally question the design or designer. He must have been somewhat limited and puny to not be able to design it in any other way.

[ QUOTE ]
God cannot be immoral. He is the definition of moral and to be otherwise would be to contradict himself and his nature.


[/ QUOTE ]

What I am saying is that is how you define god, unfortunately it is not matched by evidence. Could you be in denial?

[ QUOTE ]
I think he might have meant Hinduism. Ravi Zacharias (a Christian apologist) has commented on the contradictory nature of hinduism and used a very similiar arguement (that one Hindu can claim that god is impersonal and another can claim that god is personal and both would be right).

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah yes... he may have meant many things but those are not the facts right? I mean all christian women need wear a jihab as well, no? That doesn't seem very much in line with the bible but that's a fact!? Nice sort of way to do an apologetic, sort of very straightforward and factual. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
By your logic, if a benevolent god exists, then his words would match with everyone's moral sense. Unless everyone's moral sense is identical, or god is schizophrenic, this is impossible.


[/ QUOTE ]
No, there no logical reason why god cant want some to worship him and others to recognise that worship on pain of damnation is empty. Also it may be that you are the one who will realise you are wrong and move towards my morality.

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously, the problem is that, in this scenario, god isn't telling you anything from your moral sense. I don't know why we would assume otherwise in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its not an assumption its a fact. For me, when it comes to morality, it is my moral sense that tells be right from wrong. If you think something can be made okay by being told its okay then fine but don't assume its true for others.

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If your underlying assumptions imply the morality of God, then obviously I can't accept those assumptions and simultaneously dispute the morality of God.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So one would think, yet, here we are.

[/ QUOTE ]
If that was all that was being done then we wouldn't be here. Other properties of god and man are being fixed as well and just as defining a circle as square doesn't make it square without removing meaning from one of the concepts, so defining god as benevelent doesn't make him benevelent without removing meaning from one of the concepts.

chez

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
And really, this entire hypothesis is based on an impossible premise, because the day that the God of the Bible incontrovertibly shows Himself to be real to all mankind on this planet, is the day that a pivotal aspect of free will ends as it applies to God.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. There are posters here that say, Even if God proved he was real I still wouldn't follow Him or love him.
You can believe in Him but still reject Him, namely Satanists or devil worshipers. But most people who reject God wouldn't be in this group, they would be people who just claim ownership of their lives and don't want to submit to God's will.

[godBoy]

The important thing in this story is that God didn't want Abraham to burn and kill Isaac his only son.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
You can believe in Him but still reject Him, namely Satanists or devil worshipers.

[/ QUOTE ]

They don't exist. Please don't be dumb.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe in my own morality. Not anyone else's. I know what happens when I deny what seems right to me in order to do what seems right to the people around me. And it's not good. Considering that Christianity feels very disturbing and awful to me, I don't believe it represents a morality I am interested in adhering to. Any "morality" that makes me feel bad about myself, the world, and God is a piss-poor morality IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you mean by this that any code of moral behaviour is as good as any other objectively? That we each choose our morality (or perhaps that it is part of our psychological/cultural makeup?) and the concept of right or wrong is purely conventional?

[ QUOTE ]
Also, God is omnipotent. He can't be limited by specific "alternatives." I would say that God, by definition, is never in the position of having to "choose the lesser evil." As an omnipotent being, he gets to "have his cake and eat it too."

[/ QUOTE ]
The concept of omnipotence is not generally regarded in this way - it doesnt mean "able to do anything" my favorite example being God is not able to draw a square circle - there are plenty of others. I'm not trying to persuade you that it's true - but the concept of omnipotence doesnt necessarily mean that God can do the impossible.

[ QUOTE ]
And I don't accept absolute morality. I trust my own morality. If God thinks torture and vengeance and jealousy are "good things," so be it. I don't care. I don't agree with Him, regardless of how "absolute" He is. I'm not sure I even have it in me.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont think this is a fair characterisation of the theist position. Certainly, I make no claim that God thinks torture, vengeance and jealousy are good things. I think God allows evils in the world because the net good from their existence outweighs not having them.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you mean by this that any code of moral behaviour is as good as any other objectively? That we each choose our morality (or perhaps that it is part of our psychological/cultural makeup?) and the concept of right or wrong is purely conventional?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, not purely conventional. I believe there is at minimum a strong biological component. In fact, that's a big part of my point. I tried to accept Christian morals when I was growing up, and I never felt right about it. I ended up a wreck, feeling like a worthless sinner because I just couldn't make myself see things from the "right" perspective. I also had some major anxiety issues regarding hell.

I've decided since that trying to attack my feelings in order to conform is a bad idea.

[ QUOTE ]
The concept of omnipotence is not generally regarded in this way - it doesnt mean "able to do anything" my favorite example being God is not able to draw a square circle - there are plenty of others. I'm not trying to persuade you that it's true - but the concept of omnipotence doesnt necessarily mean that God can do the impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]

But under such a definition of omnipotence, God is not the Absolute as He is beholden to logical rules. I'll definitely grant that it's possible that every ounce of suffering in the world has some purpose and is necessary for the greater good.

However, the suffering of hell is another matter entirely. The idea that "God had no choice" here is ludicrous. Hell is an indication that, at minimum, God values something above compassion. Perhaps "justice." But if God values anything above compassion, He is not omnibenevolent.

[ QUOTE ]
I dont think this is a fair characterisation of the theist position. Certainly, I make no claim that God thinks torture, vengeance and jealousy are good things. I think God allows evils in the world because the net good from their existence outweighs not having them.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the bible God has directly ordered his servants to take vengeance, to (arguably) torture, to slaughter, and to enslave. God Himself made the statement "I, your God, am a jealous God." So while he may not value torture, vengeance, and jealousy per se, he clearly considers them worthwhile under some circumstances.

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
By your logic, if a benevolent god exists, then his words would match with everyone's moral sense. Unless everyone's moral sense is identical, or god is schizophrenic, this is impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]No, there no logical reason why god cant want some to worship him and others to recognise that worship on pain of damnation is empty.

[/ QUOTE ]
Fair enough, but then there is no reason why a benevolent god's words would have to match your moral sense. Besides, there's nothing to talk about in that instance. I think the underlying question assumes that this god would want loyalty.

[ QUOTE ]
Also it may be that you are the one who will realise you are wrong and move towards my morality.

[/ QUOTE ]
I already share your morality, for the most part. I'm saying that if god appeared to me, I would realise I was wrong and move toward his morality.

[ QUOTE ]
Its not an assumption its a fact. For me, when it comes to morality, it is my moral sense that tells be right from wrong. If you think something can be made okay by being told its okay then fine but don't assume its true for others.

[/ QUOTE ]
So your morality is based entirely on emotion, or conscience? Rational thought has nothing to do with it? I ask because, rationally, the word of the omniscient creater of the universe seems like a very good reason to change one's opinions. This is not a case of something being ok because I was told it's ok.

[ QUOTE ]
Other properties of god and man are being fixed as well and just as defining a circle as square doesn't make it square without removing meaning from one of the concepts, so defining god as benevelent doesn't make him benevelent without removing meaning from one of the concepts.

[/ QUOTE ]
'Benevolence' isn't a circle or square; it's meaning is not so fixed. Of course one's understanding of 'god' will alter one's understanding of benevolence, but it need not obliterate it. And if it does obliterate it, that's not so absurd. We can be wrong about what is 'good' or 'evil', and hence can be wrong about what is true benevolence.

[nepenthe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And really, this entire hypothesis is based on an impossible premise, because the day that the God of the Bible incontrovertibly shows Himself to be real to all mankind on this planet, is the day that a pivotal aspect of free will ends as it applies to God.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. There are posters here that say, Even if God proved he was real I still wouldn't follow Him or love him.
You can believe in Him but still reject Him, namely Satanists or devil worshipers. But most people who reject God wouldn't be in this group, they would be people who just claim ownership of their lives and don't want to submit to God's will.

[/ QUOTE ]

If God of the Bible would somehow find it within Himself to prove to everyone on this earth that he exists, then He might as well magically restructure everyone's brains to rid any potential dissenters of their own thoughts and follow Him blindly. Both scenarios are equally absurd within the Christian frame of reference, which places a high value on faith and free will.

[Nielsio]

I guess it's the powerful option then.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Uhhh! To me spanking his an illegal act. I don't know where the law stands in the US.

[/ QUOTE ]
Where I live it's not illegal. You didn't answer the question, though.

[ QUOTE ]
I did not forsake anything... eden or otherwise. You mean my ancestors did and I wear the effect. Nice sense of justice.

[/ QUOTE ]
God is always just. Just because it doesn't fit your definition of justice doesn't mean it isn't just.

[ QUOTE ]
Reagarding earthquakes.. you could equally question the design or designer. He must have been somewhat limited and puny to not be able to design it in any other way.

[/ QUOTE ]
Who said he couldn't design it any other way? They are natural acts. We rejected our chance to live perfectly safe lives.

[ QUOTE ]
What I am saying is that is how you define god, unfortunately it is not matched by evidence. Could you be in denial?

[/ QUOTE ]
What evidence?

[ QUOTE ]
Ah yes... he may have meant many things but those are not the facts right? I mean all christian women need wear a jihab as well, no? That doesn't seem very much in line with the bible but that's a fact!?

[/ QUOTE ]
This is petty and I don't see how it relates to what you quoted. The man made a mistake. He's human.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By your logic, if a benevolent god exists, then his words would match with everyone's moral sense. Unless everyone's moral sense is identical, or god is schizophrenic, this is impossible.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, there no logical reason why god cant want some to worship him and others to recognise that worship on pain of damnation is empty.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Fair enough, but then there is no reason why a benevolent god's words would have to match your moral sense. Besides, there's nothing to talk about in that instance. I think the underlying question assumes that this god would want loyalty.

[/ QUOTE ]
There is a reason to think they match, my moral sense of what is benevelent has been provided by a benevelent god. That is what I'm being loyal to, and so could everyone else whilst still being different. Think of it as children all loving the parent whilst showing it in different ways because they are different.

[ QUOTE ]
I already share your morality, for the most part. I'm saying that if god appeared to me, I would realise I was wrong and move toward his morality.


[/ QUOTE ]
My point is that it is his morality, if a benevelent god exists. I'm also claimint that rationaly our view is the only view consistent with a benevelent christian god (maybe also the possibility that morality disappears at death)

[ QUOTE ]
So your morality is based entirely on emotion, or conscience? Rational thought has nothing to do with it? I ask because, rationally, the word of the omniscient creater of the universe seems like a very good reason to change one's opinions. This is not a case of something being ok because I was told it's ok.

[/ QUOTE ]
All (human) morality is grounded in some pre-rational form but of course rationality has a lot to do with it. Why don't I (and I guess you) want babies to be tortured? Why do we want anything?

If god explained why its good to demand worship on pain of damnation and provided a rational argument I understood then there would be no problem, but thats not the same as just saying that its good.

[ QUOTE ]
'Benevolence' isn't a circle or square; it's meaning is not so fixed. Of course one's understanding of 'god' will alter one's understanding of benevolence, but it need not obliterate it. And if it does obliterate it, that's not so absurd. We can be wrong about what is 'good' or 'evil', and hence can be wrong about what is true benevolence.

[/ QUOTE ]
True but if it has any meaning at all then it cannot be part of a definition unless the meaning is consistent with the rest of the definition and my point is that it is only consistent if god isn't morally repugnant (by my god given morality).

Its possible its obliterated and morality disappears altogether, I cant disagree with that.

chez

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Where I live it's not illegal. You didn't answer the question, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is wrong to hit a child.

[ QUOTE ]
God is always just. Just because it doesn't fit your definition of justice doesn't mean it isn't just.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, he doesn't appear to be so. Since you are basing your opinion on hearsay and I am basing it on facts, I think my position is much more tenable. Of course, if you cahnge the definitions of the word "just" then there is no discussion possible, but it doesn't make you right. Far from it.

[ QUOTE ]
Who said he couldn't design it any other way? They are natural acts. We rejected our chance to live perfectly safe lives

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't reject anything. I was born in it, as it is. I had no choice.

[ QUOTE ]
What evidence?

[/ QUOTE ]

The one I see with my own eyes and all my senses. The evidence that stares me in the face. The one you are in denial of.

[ QUOTE ]

This is petty and I don't see how it relates to what you quoted. The man made a mistake. He's human.

[/ QUOTE ]

All I hear about god is from other men. So you say that could be some errors? I agree.

[godBoy]

Hmmm, I assure you they do. That's Satanists or devil worshipers.
Or were you referring to people who believe in Him but still reject Him?

[Mr_J]

How in the blue flying [censored] does 'killing' your son save humanity?

If god really does exist, then he is not worthy of worship, as he doesn't respect you. What kind of almighty being needs to be worshipped, let alone begs for our worship? The size of his ego must be matched only by his insecurity.

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
If god really does exist, then he is not worthy of worship, as he doesn't respect you. What kind of almighty being needs to be worshipped, let alone begs for our worship? The size of his ego must be matched only by his insecurity.

[/ QUOTE ]

These are all big misunderstandings of the God of the bible.
What will God profit from something that we choose to do?

"with heaven your throne and earth as your footstool, what house can I build for you?"

To think that God needs our worship - or begs for it - is not understanding him.

About worship - I think that we are created to worship, it's healthy for us and when we do God draws close to us. This is what the bible says about it, I know that doesn't mean you should believe it but you are criticising the beliefs that you think christians have when they are not actually our beliefs at all.

[ QUOTE ]
How in the blue flying [censored] does 'killing' your son save humanity?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a display of how small God's ego really is. Giving something that you love away for someone else, self-sacrifice.
As for the question - it has been discussed before.

[Mr_J]

You do not know the nature of god. You don't know how god thinks or what drives him/her/it.

[ QUOTE ]
This is a display of how small God's ego really is. Giving something that you love away for someone else, self-sacrifice.

[/ QUOTE ]

He didn't give jesus away at all. The most he did was send him on a 30 year trip at the end of which he suffered a great deal of pain for a few days. Who knows if jesus even really felt the pain? This is assuming the jesus is actually the son of god.

[ QUOTE ]
About worship - I think that we are created to worship, it's healthy for us and when we do God draws close to us. This is what the bible says about it,

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would god create a species to worship him? There is no healthy explaination that I can think of. Healthy for us? To respect him yes, but not to worship him. He should be seen as a father. I can't believe people actually trust the bible as evidence or a source. You don't know who wrote what, and whether it was true. You can only trust that the information there is correct.

As for being drawn close to god, if he really loves and respects us, he would want friendship and not to be treated as some almighty being that we are not worthy of standing beside. He would want to be seen as a father, and not a master.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
It is wrong to hit a child.

[/ QUOTE ]
You still haven't answered the question.

[ QUOTE ]
Well, he doesn't appear to be so.

[/ QUOTE ]
He might not appear to be so to you.

[ QUOTE ]
Since you are basing your opinion on hearsay and I am basing it on facts, I think my position is much more tenable.

[/ QUOTE ]
What "facts" are you basing your opinion on and how do you know what I'm basing mine on?

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't reject anything. I was born in it, as it is. I had no choice.

[/ QUOTE ]
Original Sin (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm)

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]

It is wrong to hit a child.


You still haven't answered the question.


[/ QUOTE ]

The original question was whether parents enjoy spanking their children, right. I guess neither you nor I can answer that question. I would say that some (not sure if it most ) that do spank their children do it for enjoyment,be it power or sadism, others may do it because that is the only role model they had ie their own parents or their concept of god is inclined towards brutality and punishment.

[ QUOTE ]
He might not appear to be so to you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly I am not in denial.

[ QUOTE ]
What "facts" are you basing your opinion on and how do you know what I'm basing mine on?


[/ QUOTE ]

What I get thru my five senses veryday, by looking at things without prejudices. Unless you live on another planet, I guess you must base your on some product of your imagination. Note that I am not saying there are not good things or good people. They don't worry me one bit, but needlesss suffering does, especially if it is "natural".

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't reject anything. I was born in it, as it is. I had no choice.


Original Sin


[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't address the point I raised.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
I would say that some (not sure if it most ) that do spank their children do it for enjoyment,be it power or sadism, others may do it because that is the only role model they had ie their own parents or their concept of god is inclined towards brutality and punishment.

[/ QUOTE ]
I doubt that those who do it sadistically are anything but a tiny minority since it is a taboo to abuse one's own child. I would posit that the majority of parents who spank their children do not get pleasure out of it.

[ QUOTE ]
What I get thru my five senses veryday, by looking at things without prejudices.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're obviously not looking at the issue at hand without prejudices. I doubt you approach anything religious with a totally open mind.

[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't address the point I raised.

[/ QUOTE ]
The point was about being "punished" for Adam's sin. That is what Original Sin means. Feel free to google it for more info. I won't pretend to be able to explain it better than it already has been.

[nepenthe]

[ QUOTE ]
You do not know the nature of god. You don't know how god thinks or what drives him/her/it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pardon for intervening, but wtf? And you do (as you seem to imply in your other quote below)?

[ QUOTE ]
If god really does exist, then he is not worthy of worship, as he doesn't respect you. What kind of almighty being needs to be worshipped, let alone begs for our worship? The size of his ego must be matched only by his insecurity.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're outright stating that he doesn't respect you, that he feels the need to be worshipped, that he is in fact begging for our worship, that he has a huge ego, and that he is extremely insecure. And you know all of this how?

By the way, to avoid any further assumptions on your part, I'm speaking as a non-Christian.

[ QUOTE ]
Why would god create a species to worship him? There is no healthy explaination that I can think of.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's just an issue concerning the limitation of the human mind and not God's mental healthiness or lack thereof.

[ QUOTE ]
As for being drawn close to god, if he really loves and respects us, he would want friendship and not to be treated as some almighty being that we are not worthy of standing beside. He would want to be seen as a father, and not a master.

[/ QUOTE ]

So now you're not only presuming what "god thinks or what drives him/her/it," but you're also speculating on what he should/would think. Kind of a presumptious stretch to take for a non-believer no?

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
I doubt that those who do it sadistically are anything but a tiny minority since it is a taboo to abuse one's own child. I would posit that the majority of parents who spank their children do not get pleasure out of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know, I was not raised in a brutal environment although I was raised in a somewhat religious one and as a child was indeed religious if not devout.


[ QUOTE ]
You're obviously not looking at the issue at hand without prejudices. I doubt you approach anything religious with a totally open mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am looking at religion with a lot less prejudices than you have towards the alternative, since I have no belief to start with.

[ QUOTE ]
The point was about being "punished" for Adam's sin. That is what Original Sin means. Feel free to google it for more info. I won't pretend to be able to explain it better than it already has been.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's it, punish other than the perpetrator. Nice sense of justice. Ah well, it takes all kind!

[nepenthe]

You're obviously ignoring that human senses and what those senses believe to be rational thought can be one of the worst forms of prejudice against the Christian faith. And I say that with as little tongue tied behind my back as possible.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
If you love him because he is good, then surely there is a way of knowing what is good outside of god.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you elaborate on this? I dont see how this follows.

[mikeevans12]

First off I am a beleiver in God, and consider myself a christian.

However, your rebuttal to the claim that God is being immoral by sending Jesus , is wrong. I beleive that God was not immoral just as you do, but your arguement is founded upon the notion that God is omnipotent, which implies his acts are morally correct. Objectively you can say god defines the morally correct, but that makes your claim even more problematic, because you argue in a circle in that you say god is not immoral because he knows his actions are morally correct. This goes back to the Plato, is something moral because God beleives it to be, or does God beleive something to be moral because it is moral. In the formal, God is an arbitrary creater of morality, which can be changed at any moment. Which could mean that Jesus's suffering was right then, but now wrong. The later takes god into account that God is irrelevant in the construction of morality.

Both these conclusions lead us to a point where God cannot be omnipotent.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Hmmm, I assure you they do. That's Satanists or devil worshipers.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, they don't. The closest thing is pagan worshippers of Set. The only people who claim to worship the Christian devil are emo teenagers who want attention.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
How in the blue flying [censored] does 'killing' your son save humanity?

If god really does exist, then he is not worthy of worship, as he doesn't respect you. What kind of almighty being needs to be worshipped, let alone begs for our worship? The size of his ego must be matched only by his insecurity.

[/ QUOTE ]
1) Jesus died because humanity is sinful and could never repay the sin they had caused.
2) God needs nothing from us. He deserves worship, but does not need it nor does he beg for it.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How in the blue flying [censored] does 'killing' your son save humanity?

If god really does exist, then he is not worthy of worship, as he doesn't respect you. What kind of almighty being needs to be worshipped, let alone begs for our worship? The size of his ego must be matched only by his insecurity.

[/ QUOTE ]
1) Jesus died because humanity is sinful and could never repay the sin they had caused.
2) God needs nothing from us. He deserves worship, but does not need it nor does he beg for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

"... because of the sin they had caused... "!! You mean the one day old baby that suffocates due to an earthquake. Nice one!

"...does not need it nor does he beg for it..."!! No, just condemn us to eternal damnation if we don't. Nice one again!


You have a very bizarre concept of deity to say the least! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
"... because of the sin they had caused... "!! You mean the one day old baby that suffocates due to an earthquake. Nice one!

[/ QUOTE ]
I thought we covered this.

[ QUOTE ]
"...does not need it nor does he beg for it..."!! No, just condemn us to eternal damnation if we don't. Nice one again!

[/ QUOTE ]
Really? How do you know? Were you condemned in a past life?

edit: You aren't condemned because you didn't go to church X times. You might be condemned because you are sinful and did nothing to repent. You chose the path without God.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How in the blue flying [censored] does 'killing' your son save humanity?

If god really does exist, then he is not worthy of worship, as he doesn't respect you. What kind of almighty being needs to be worshipped, let alone begs for our worship? The size of his ego must be matched only by his insecurity.

[/ QUOTE ]
1) Jesus died because humanity is sinful and could never repay the sin they had caused.
2) God needs nothing from us. He deserves worship, but does not need it nor does he beg for it.

[/ QUOTE ]
If god exist then he made us different. He made you to worship but he made me with a different morality that prohibits worship although love and loyalty are good.

chez

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How in the blue flying [censored] does 'killing' your son save humanity?

If god really does exist, then he is not worthy of worship, as he doesn't respect you. What kind of almighty being needs to be worshipped, let alone begs for our worship? The size of his ego must be matched only by his insecurity.

[/ QUOTE ]
1) Jesus died because humanity is sinful and could never repay the sin they had caused.
2) God needs nothing from us. He deserves worship, but does not need it nor does he beg for it.

[/ QUOTE ]
If god exist then he made us different. He made you to worship but he made me with a different morality that prohibits worship although love and loyalty are good.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think he "makes" you with a different morality. I think your moral behavior is developed.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"... because of the sin they had caused... "!! You mean the one day old baby that suffocates due to an earthquake. Nice one!

[/ QUOTE ]
I thought we covered this.


[/ QUOTE ]
No we didn't.
[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
"...does not need it nor does he beg for it..."!! No, just condemn us to eternal damnation if we don't. Nice one again!

[/ QUOTE ]
Really? How do you know? Were you condemned in a past life?

edit: You aren't condemned because you didn't go to church X times. You might be condemned because you are sinful and did nothing to repent. You chose the path without God.

[/ QUOTE ]


Why would I choose the path with god, that monstrosity according to your understanding, given what I see and know?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How in the blue flying [censored] does 'killing' your son save humanity?

If god really does exist, then he is not worthy of worship, as he doesn't respect you. What kind of almighty being needs to be worshipped, let alone begs for our worship? The size of his ego must be matched only by his insecurity.

[/ QUOTE ]
1) Jesus died because humanity is sinful and could never repay the sin they had caused.
2) God needs nothing from us. He deserves worship, but does not need it nor does he beg for it.

[/ QUOTE ]
If god exist then he made us different. He made you to worship but he made me with a different morality that prohibits worship although love and loyalty are good.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think he "makes" you with a different morality. I think your moral behavior is developed.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree, god has nothing to do with it, its all just evolved. However if god exists then my rationality and morality (such as they are) are down to him and I shall remain loyal to them.

chez

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Why would I choose the path with god, that monstrosity according to your understanding, given what I see and know?

[/ QUOTE ]
It's infinitely better than the alternative.

And what's that about monstrosity? I'm quite sure I've said no such thing.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How in the blue flying [censored] does 'killing' your son save humanity?

If god really does exist, then he is not worthy of worship, as he doesn't respect you. What kind of almighty being needs to be worshipped, let alone begs for our worship? The size of his ego must be matched only by his insecurity.

[/ QUOTE ]
1) Jesus died because humanity is sinful and could never repay the sin they had caused.
2) God needs nothing from us. He deserves worship, but does not need it nor does he beg for it.

[/ QUOTE ]
If god exist then he made us different. He made you to worship but he made me with a different morality that prohibits worship although love and loyalty are good.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think he "makes" you with a different morality. I think your moral behavior is developed.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree, god has nothing to do with it, its all just evolved. However if god exists then my rationality and morality (such as they are) are down to him and I shall remain loyal to them.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
You came up with your own rationality and morality yourself? Or did someone teach them to you?

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why would I choose the path with god, that monstrosity according to your understanding, given what I see and know?

[/ QUOTE ]
It's infinitely better than the alternative.

And what's that about monstrosity? I'm quite sure I've said no such thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would much prefer the alternative.. there is no god.. there is nothing responsible for what is.. it is an accident.

Monstrosity is my view of "your" god concept. Never said you saw it as such.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
I would much prefer the alternative.. there is no god.. there is nothing responsible for what is.. it is an accident.

[/ QUOTE ]
You might prefer it in the short term...

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How in the blue flying [censored] does 'killing' your son save humanity?

If god really does exist, then he is not worthy of worship, as he doesn't respect you. What kind of almighty being needs to be worshipped, let alone begs for our worship? The size of his ego must be matched only by his insecurity.

[/ QUOTE ]
1) Jesus died because humanity is sinful and could never repay the sin they had caused.
2) God needs nothing from us. He deserves worship, but does not need it nor does he beg for it.

[/ QUOTE ]
If god exist then he made us different. He made you to worship but he made me with a different morality that prohibits worship although love and loyalty are good.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think he "makes" you with a different morality. I think your moral behavior is developed.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree, god has nothing to do with it, its all just evolved. However if god exists then my rationality and morality (such as they are) are down to him and I shall remain loyal to them.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
You came up with your own rationality and morality yourself? Or did someone teach them to you?

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont care about the well-being of other because I was taught to, its an evolved characteristic of social animals (or its a gift from god).

and they didn't teach me my ability to think, they taught me how to use that ability and fed it with some ideas to think about.

humans are different to brick walls, we have an inate ability to reason and care.

chez

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would much prefer the alternative.. there is no god.. there is nothing responsible for what is.. it is an accident.

[/ QUOTE ]
You might prefer it in the short term...

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, again.. the threat... and you call it the god of love? lol

[Mr_J]

I'm not saying I know the nature of god at all, these are just my opinions.

[ QUOTE ]
That's just an issue concerning the limitation of the human mind and not God's mental healthiness or lack thereof.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all. You can't say that a being that creates a species and then asks for their worship is of sound mental health.

[IronUnkind]

Okay. I read them. Now will you answer the question?

[IronUnkind]

Because love and punishment are mutually exclusive?

[Nielsio]

If you define good as anything god commands and/or does, then the concept of good is meaningless; you're only reverting to the fact that he is powerful and you'll submit your socalled 'love' to anyone who has power over you: your parents, the govt, etc.

But if you actually have the nerve to look at his actions and make up for yourself what you think about them, so to _judge_, then the matter of appreciation can actually become meaningful; but only if you actually do this.

So clearly there is a way of determining what is right and wrong outside of god, because right and wrong are facts of reality, and there can be no being who's actions are good no matter what.

So: have you any idea how to determine right from wrong?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would much prefer the alternative.. there is no god.. there is nothing responsible for what is.. it is an accident.

[/ QUOTE ]
You might prefer it in the short term...

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, again.. the threat... and you call it the god of love? lol

[/ QUOTE ]
You're choosing that path. It's more of a consequence than a threat. He would love you if you tried to love Him and would forgive you if you asked.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would much prefer the alternative.. there is no god.. there is nothing responsible for what is.. it is an accident.

[/ QUOTE ]
You might prefer it in the short term...

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, again.. the threat... and you call it the god of love? lol

[/ QUOTE ]
You're choosing that path. It's more of a consequence than a threat. He would love you if you tried to love Him and would forgive you if you asked.

[/ QUOTE ]
fortunately any benevelent god doesn't need to be asked, he made us fallable and understands that we make mistakes and no bad consequences are appropriate.

chez

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
And which interpretation of "good" does God telling Abraham to burn and kill Isaac his only son fall into?

[/ QUOTE ]

God’s interpretation.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd much rather believe that there is not god than having to experience the despair I would definitely experience, did I think some over powerful entity had to be responsible for the totally unintelligent design that I see all around me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you include yourself in that “unintelligent design”?

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you include yourself in that “unintelligent design”?

[/ QUOTE ]
I am human, of course. It just seem that accidentally I am less gullible than most.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you include yourself in that “unintelligent design”?

[/ QUOTE ]
I am human, of course. It just seem that accidentally I am less gullible than most.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you’re a better form of accident? By what standard?

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
ST. BERNARD, Southern Leyte—Tons of mud and rocks yesterday tumbled down from the mountain after weeks of rains and swallowed a whole village of between 2,000 and 3,000 people, including a schoolhouse filled with children.

[/ QUOTE ]

God is love, Hallelujah! /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ST. BERNARD, Southern Leyte—Tons of mud and rocks yesterday tumbled down from the mountain after weeks of rains and swallowed a whole village of between 2,000 and 3,000 people, including a schoolhouse filled with children.

[/ QUOTE ]

God is love, Hallelujah! /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Could the love in you create between 2,000 and 3,000 souls?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would much prefer the alternative.. there is no god.. there is nothing responsible for what is.. it is an accident.

[/ QUOTE ]
You might prefer it in the short term...

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, again.. the threat... and you call it the god of love? lol

[/ QUOTE ]
You're choosing that path. It's more of a consequence than a threat. He would love you if you tried to love Him and would forgive you if you asked.

[/ QUOTE ]
fortunately any benevelent god doesn't need to be asked, he made us fallable and understands that we make mistakes and no bad consequences are appropriate.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately, that's not the case. Yes he understands that we make mistakes, but he expects us to ask for forgiveness. Scorning God is the opposite direction and you accept the consequences of doing so by refusing to ask for forgiveness.

If I ever have children, I understand that some may disobey me. That doesn't mean there won't be consequences for disobedience, even though I would love those children totally.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would much prefer the alternative.. there is no god.. there is nothing responsible for what is.. it is an accident.

[/ QUOTE ]
You might prefer it in the short term...

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, again.. the threat... and you call it the god of love? lol

[/ QUOTE ]
You're choosing that path. It's more of a consequence than a threat. He would love you if you tried to love Him and would forgive you if you asked.

[/ QUOTE ]
fortunately any benevelent god doesn't need to be asked, he made us fallable and understands that we make mistakes and no bad consequences are appropriate.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately, that's not the case. Yes he understands that we make mistakes, but he expects us to ask for forgiveness. Scorning God is the opposite direction and you accept the consequences of doing so by refusing to ask for forgiveness.

If I ever have children, I understand that some may disobey me. That doesn't mean there won't be consequences for disobedience, even though I would love those children totally.

[/ QUOTE ]
We're not talking about scorning god but doing our best to use the moral and rational abilities provided.

If you punish your kids for doing their best then thats up to you but I think god can do better.

chez

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
If you punish your kids for doing their best then thats up to you but I think god can do better.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're not doing your best. You might do ok or well, but unless you are absolutely trying to live the way God asks (which includes asking for forgiveness when you do sin), you're not doing your best.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Could the love in you create between 2,000 and 3,000 souls?

[/ QUOTE ]

The love of me wouldn't do so, if it is to amuse myself with their suffering afterwards.

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you include yourself in that “unintelligent design”?

[/ QUOTE ]
I am human, of course. It just seem that accidentally I am less gullible than most.

[/ QUOTE ]

It appears that you are considerably less humble as well. It takes all kinds, I suppose.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you punish your kids for doing their best then thats up to you but I think god can do better.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're not doing your best. You might do ok or well, but unless you are absolutely trying to live the way God asks (which includes asking for forgiveness when you do sin), you're not doing your best.

[/ QUOTE ]
That may be what god asks of you but if god exists he doesn't ask that of me. Rather the reverse where, if god is my guide, he asks that I follow as rationaly as possible the moral guide within me.

chez

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you include yourself in that “unintelligent design”?

[/ QUOTE ]
I am human, of course. It just seem that accidentally I am less gullible than most.

[/ QUOTE ]

It appears that you are considerably less humble as well. It takes all kinds, I suppose.

[/ QUOTE ]

In some instances humility is not a virtue. At least I don't feel that all I experience has been made specially for me, that somehow I am at the pinnacle or the center of the universe.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you punish your kids for doing their best then thats up to you but I think god can do better.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're not doing your best. You might do ok or well, but unless you are absolutely trying to live the way God asks (which includes asking for forgiveness when you do sin), you're not doing your best.

[/ QUOTE ]
That may be what god asks of you but if god exists he doesn't ask that of me. Rather the reverse where, if god is my guide, he asks that I follow as rationaly as possible the moral guide within me.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
"I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you punish your kids for doing their best then thats up to you but I think god can do better.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're not doing your best. You might do ok or well, but unless you are absolutely trying to live the way God asks (which includes asking for forgiveness when you do sin), you're not doing your best.

[/ QUOTE ]
That may be what god asks of you but if god exists he doesn't ask that of me. Rather the reverse where, if god is my guide, he asks that I follow as rationaly as possible the moral guide within me.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
"I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

[/ QUOTE ]
nope not in my morals. I've got the ones that tell good from bad.

chez

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you punish your kids for doing their best then thats up to you but I think god can do better.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're not doing your best. You might do ok or well, but unless you are absolutely trying to live the way God asks (which includes asking for forgiveness when you do sin), you're not doing your best.

[/ QUOTE ]
That may be what god asks of you but if god exists he doesn't ask that of me. Rather the reverse where, if god is my guide, he asks that I follow as rationaly as possible the moral guide within me.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
"I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

[/ QUOTE ]
nope not in my morals. I've got the ones that tell good from bad.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you always good? Or is everything you do good because you do it?

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you always good? Or is everything you do good because you do it

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose that chez, like you and me, according to your outlandish notions, are not always good since we are made in the image of god.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are you always good? Or is everything you do good because you do it

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose that chez, like you and me, according to your outlandish notions, are not always good since we are made in the image of god.

[/ QUOTE ]
I was asking if he ever deviated from his own moral sense of good or if he just defines everything he does as good.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
I was asking if he ever deviated from his own moral sense of good or if he just defines everything he does as good.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't speak for chez, as for me, no... I am far from perfect and I know that, in my life, on many occasions I have not acted in the best possible way and sometimes even downright wrong. From my observations, this seems to be universal. As I said, it is also to be expected if we are made in the image of your particular god.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I was asking if he ever deviated from his own moral sense of good or if he just defines everything he does as good.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't speak for chez, as for me, no... I am far from perfect and I know that, in my life, on many occasions I have not acted in the best possible way and sometimes even downright wrong. From my observations, this seems to be universal. As I said, it is also to be expected if we are made in the image of your particular god.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's to be expected since we are no longer the way we were before Adam sinned.

Ok, so you admit you're not perfect. Chez was, at least for the sake of the argument, agreeing to a God who supposedly gave him different morals to follow and that these tell him what's right or wrong. If that's the case and Chez isn't perfect, how can he make this up to God? God says that he can't. By not believing in Jesus and asking for forgiveness, you are accepting the consequences of a life without God and damning yourself.

[MidGe]

No, it has nothing to do with Adam. I don't know the dude. I agree that the image is not a perfect reflection. We, humans, seem to be imbued with a moral sense that is so obviously lacking in your conception of god.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
No, it has nothing to do with Adam. I don't know the dude. I agree that the image is not a perfect reflection. We, humans, seem to be imbued with a moral sense that is so obviously lacking in your conception of god.

[/ QUOTE ]
You don't have to know him. I'm not exactly sure what your last sentence is trying to say.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I was asking if he ever deviated from his own moral sense of good or if he just defines everything he does as good.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't speak for chez, as for me, no... I am far from perfect and I know that, in my life, on many occasions I have not acted in the best possible way and sometimes even downright wrong. From my observations, this seems to be universal. As I said, it is also to be expected if we are made in the image of your particular god.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's to be expected since we are no longer the way we were before Adam sinned.

Ok, so you admit you're not perfect. Chez was, at least for the sake of the argument, agreeing to a God who supposedly gave him different morals to follow and that these tell him what's right or wrong. If that's the case and Chez isn't perfect, how can he make this up to God? God says that he can't. By not believing in Jesus and asking for forgiveness, you are accepting the consequences of a life without God and damning yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Adam, original sin...two concepts that, as one of the Gods of comedy once said, are among the "most ridiculous things Ive ever heard".

This thread is a perfect example of the twisting and turning theists have to go through to convince themselves there is any basis for their beliefs other than blind faith (aka brainwashing).

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not exactly sure what your last sentence is trying to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

What it says... According to your version, we are made in the image of your god.. but an image is just that, it differs from the original.. In this case, most humans have a sense of right or wrong, whereas your version of god doesn't... that's the difference.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
This thread is a perfect example of the twisting and turning theists have to go through to convince themselves there is any basis for their beliefs other than blind faith (aka brainwashing).

[/ QUOTE ]

All knowledge is based on faith.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not exactly sure what your last sentence is trying to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

What it says... According to your version, we are made in the image of your god.. but an image is just that, it differs from the original.. In this case, most humans have a sense of right or wrong, whereas your version of god doesn't... that's the difference.

[/ QUOTE ]
No. Made in his image, not made to be mini-gods. God most certainly would know right from wrong.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
God most certainly would know right from wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Look around. You are in denial. Only extreme mental gymnastics will assist you in supporting this chimera.

It is just a matter of opening your eyes and allow the truth to shine in without fear. Then you will be able to see and comprehend. It is fear that prevents you from seeing the truth.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This thread is a perfect example of the twisting and turning theists have to go through to convince themselves there is any basis for their beliefs other than blind faith (aka brainwashing).

[/ QUOTE ]


All knowledge is based on faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe your knowledge is. My knowledge is based on logical evaluation of information presented to me and the ability to distinguish between what is rational and relevant and what is just noise.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This thread is a perfect example of the twisting and turning theists have to go through to convince themselves there is any basis for their beliefs other than blind faith (aka brainwashing).

[/ QUOTE ]


All knowledge is based on faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe your knowledge is. My knowledge is based on logical evaluation of information presented to me and the ability to distinguish between what is rational and relevant and what is just noise.

[/ QUOTE ]

That may be your belief. But, in reality, you cannot provide rigorous proof, without premises taken on faith, of a single one of your so-called certainties of logic.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This thread is a perfect example of the twisting and turning theists have to go through to convince themselves there is any basis for their beliefs other than blind faith (aka brainwashing).

[/ QUOTE ]


All knowledge is based on faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe your knowledge is. My knowledge is based on logical evaluation of information presented to me and the ability to distinguish between what is rational and relevant and what is just noise.

[/ QUOTE ]

That may be your belief. But, in reality, you cannot provide rigorous proof, without premises taken on faith, of a single one of your so-called certainties of logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

The proof is in the pudding, and just as there has never been any scientific advance made by introducing a self-fulfilling concept such as god to explain the universe, there is no need to introduce an ephemeral concept such as faith into my own experience.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This thread is a perfect example of the twisting and turning theists have to go through to convince themselves there is any basis for their beliefs other than blind faith (aka brainwashing).

[/ QUOTE ]


All knowledge is based on faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe your knowledge is. My knowledge is based on logical evaluation of information presented to me and the ability to distinguish between what is rational and relevant and what is just noise.

[/ QUOTE ]

That may be your belief. But, in reality, you cannot provide rigorous proof, without premises taken on faith, of a single one of your so-called certainties of logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

The proof is in the pudding, and just as there has never been any scientific advance made by introducing a self-fulfilling concept such as god to explain the universe, there is no need to introduce an ephemeral concept such as faith into my own experience.

[/ QUOTE ]

In that case, give me an example of a “certainty” of science or your experience that is totally without faith as a basis.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This thread is a perfect example of the twisting and turning theists have to go through to convince themselves there is any basis for their beliefs other than blind faith (aka brainwashing).

[/ QUOTE ]


All knowledge is based on faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe your knowledge is. My knowledge is based on logical evaluation of information presented to me and the ability to distinguish between what is rational and relevant and what is just noise.

[/ QUOTE ]

That may be your belief. But, in reality, you cannot provide rigorous proof, without premises taken on faith, of a single one of your so-called certainties of logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

The proof is in the pudding, and just as there has never been any scientific advance made by introducing a self-fulfilling concept such as god to explain the universe, there is no need to introduce an ephemeral concept such as faith into my own experience.

[/ QUOTE ]

In that case, give me an example of a “certainty” of science or your experience that is totally without faith as a basis.

[/ QUOTE ]

arithmetic is the easiest one, the whole of mathematics and formal logic to the extent that Ive studied them are others

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This thread is a perfect example of the twisting and turning theists have to go through to convince themselves there is any basis for their beliefs other than blind faith (aka brainwashing).

[/ QUOTE ]


All knowledge is based on faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe your knowledge is. My knowledge is based on logical evaluation of information presented to me and the ability to distinguish between what is rational and relevant and what is just noise.

[/ QUOTE ]

That may be your belief. But, in reality, you cannot provide rigorous proof, without premises taken on faith, of a single one of your so-called certainties of logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

The proof is in the pudding, and just as there has never been any scientific advance made by introducing a self-fulfilling concept such as god to explain the universe, there is no need to introduce an ephemeral concept such as faith into my own experience.

[/ QUOTE ]

In that case, give me an example of a “certainty” of science or your experience that is totally without faith as a basis.

[/ QUOTE ]

arithmetic is the easiest one, the whole of mathematics and formal logic to the extent that Ive studied them are others

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, what’s a specific expression in arithmetic or logic whose basic axioms are all exhaustively proved, i.e. not needing to be taken on faith?

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This thread is a perfect example of the twisting and turning theists have to go through to convince themselves there is any basis for their beliefs other than blind faith (aka brainwashing).

[/ QUOTE ]


All knowledge is based on faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe your knowledge is. My knowledge is based on logical evaluation of information presented to me and the ability to distinguish between what is rational and relevant and what is just noise.

[/ QUOTE ]

That may be your belief. But, in reality, you cannot provide rigorous proof, without premises taken on faith, of a single one of your so-called certainties of logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

The proof is in the pudding, and just as there has never been any scientific advance made by introducing a self-fulfilling concept such as god to explain the universe, there is no need to introduce an ephemeral concept such as faith into my own experience.

[/ QUOTE ]

In that case, give me an example of a “certainty” of science or your experience that is totally without faith as a basis.

[/ QUOTE ]

arithmetic is the easiest one, the whole of mathematics and formal logic to the extent that Ive studied them are others

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, what’s a specific expression in arithmetic or logic whose basic axioms are all exhaustively proved, i.e. not needing to be taken on faith?

[/ QUOTE ]

every arithmetic concept i have ever enocountered is provable either by physical representation or by formal prinicples of induction. nothing at all that needs to be taken on faith

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This thread is a perfect example of the twisting and turning theists have to go through to convince themselves there is any basis for their beliefs other than blind faith (aka brainwashing).

[/ QUOTE ]


All knowledge is based on faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe your knowledge is. My knowledge is based on logical evaluation of information presented to me and the ability to distinguish between what is rational and relevant and what is just noise.

[/ QUOTE ]

That may be your belief. But, in reality, you cannot provide rigorous proof, without premises taken on faith, of a single one of your so-called certainties of logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

The proof is in the pudding, and just as there has never been any scientific advance made by introducing a self-fulfilling concept such as god to explain the universe, there is no need to introduce an ephemeral concept such as faith into my own experience.

[/ QUOTE ]

In that case, give me an example of a “certainty” of science or your experience that is totally without faith as a basis.

[/ QUOTE ]

arithmetic is the easiest one, the whole of mathematics and formal logic to the extent that Ive studied them are others

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, what’s a specific expression in arithmetic or logic whose basic axioms are all exhaustively proved, i.e. not needing to be taken on faith?

[/ QUOTE ]

every arithmetic concept i have ever enocountered is provable either by physical representation or by formal prinicples of induction. nothing at all that needs to be taken on faith

[/ QUOTE ]

It shouldn’t be too difficult for you to provide a specific example then.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This thread is a perfect example of the twisting and turning theists have to go through to convince themselves there is any basis for their beliefs other than blind faith (aka brainwashing).

[/ QUOTE ]


All knowledge is based on faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe your knowledge is. My knowledge is based on logical evaluation of information presented to me and the ability to distinguish between what is rational and relevant and what is just noise.

[/ QUOTE ]

That may be your belief. But, in reality, you cannot provide rigorous proof, without premises taken on faith, of a single one of your so-called certainties of logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

The proof is in the pudding, and just as there has never been any scientific advance made by introducing a self-fulfilling concept such as god to explain the universe, there is no need to introduce an ephemeral concept such as faith into my own experience.

[/ QUOTE ]

In that case, give me an example of a “certainty” of science or your experience that is totally without faith as a basis.

[/ QUOTE ]

arithmetic is the easiest one, the whole of mathematics and formal logic to the extent that Ive studied them are others

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, what’s a specific expression in arithmetic or logic whose basic axioms are all exhaustively proved, i.e. not needing to be taken on faith?

[/ QUOTE ]

every arithmetic concept i have ever enocountered is provable either by physical representation or by formal prinicples of induction. nothing at all that needs to be taken on faith

[/ QUOTE ]

It shouldn’t be too difficult for you to provide a specific example then.

[/ QUOTE ]

the sum of all numbers from 1 to n = n*(n+1)/2 if you want one that is non-trivial. oooh excuse me..integers lol

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This thread is a perfect example of the twisting and turning theists have to go through to convince themselves there is any basis for their beliefs other than blind faith (aka brainwashing).

[/ QUOTE ]


All knowledge is based on faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe your knowledge is. My knowledge is based on logical evaluation of information presented to me and the ability to distinguish between what is rational and relevant and what is just noise.

[/ QUOTE ]

That may be your belief. But, in reality, you cannot provide rigorous proof, without premises taken on faith, of a single one of your so-called certainties of logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

The proof is in the pudding, and just as there has never been any scientific advance made by introducing a self-fulfilling concept such as god to explain the universe, there is no need to introduce an ephemeral concept such as faith into my own experience.

[/ QUOTE ]

In that case, give me an example of a “certainty” of science or your experience that is totally without faith as a basis.

[/ QUOTE ]

arithmetic is the easiest one, the whole of mathematics and formal logic to the extent that Ive studied them are others

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, what’s a specific expression in arithmetic or logic whose basic axioms are all exhaustively proved, i.e. not needing to be taken on faith?

[/ QUOTE ]

every arithmetic concept i have ever enocountered is provable either by physical representation or by formal prinicples of induction. nothing at all that needs to be taken on faith

[/ QUOTE ]

It shouldn’t be too difficult for you to provide a specific example then.

[/ QUOTE ]

the sum of all numbers from 1 to n = n*(n+1)/2 if you want one that is non-trivial. oooh excuse me..integers lol

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying there is not a single axiom underlying that expression that has not been exhaustively proved?

[MidGe]

I fail to see what axioms have to do with the OP, except shifting the goal posts when the heat is on. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Either god exists or he doesn't.

If he doesn't, no beef, no issues.

If he does, he may be loving/benevolent by definition (we can't argue if you define it that way), but he definitely is evil or immoral by observation.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This thread is a perfect example of the twisting and turning theists have to go through to convince themselves there is any basis for their beliefs other than blind faith (aka brainwashing).

[/ QUOTE ]


All knowledge is based on faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe your knowledge is. My knowledge is based on logical evaluation of information presented to me and the ability to distinguish between what is rational and relevant and what is just noise.

[/ QUOTE ]

That may be your belief. But, in reality, you cannot provide rigorous proof, without premises taken on faith, of a single one of your so-called certainties of logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

The proof is in the pudding, and just as there has never been any scientific advance made by introducing a self-fulfilling concept such as god to explain the universe, there is no need to introduce an ephemeral concept such as faith into my own experience.

[/ QUOTE ]

In that case, give me an example of a “certainty” of science or your experience that is totally without faith as a basis.

[/ QUOTE ]

arithmetic is the easiest one, the whole of mathematics and formal logic to the extent that Ive studied them are others

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, what’s a specific expression in arithmetic or logic whose basic axioms are all exhaustively proved, i.e. not needing to be taken on faith?

[/ QUOTE ]

every arithmetic concept i have ever enocountered is provable either by physical representation or by formal prinicples of induction. nothing at all that needs to be taken on faith

[/ QUOTE ]

It shouldn’t be too difficult for you to provide a specific example then.

[/ QUOTE ]

the sum of all numbers from 1 to n = n*(n+1)/2 if you want one that is non-trivial. oooh excuse me..integers lol

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying there is not a single axiom underlying that expression that has not been exhaustively proved?

[/ QUOTE ]

none that i know of. Since I dont believe in omniscience maybe you can point me to one.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
I fail to see what axioms have to do with the OP, except shifting the goal posts when the heat is on. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Either god exists or he doesn't.

If he doesn't, no beef, no issues.

If he does, he may be loving/benevolent by definition (we can't argue if you define it that way), but he definitely is evil or immoral by observation.

[/ QUOTE ]

midge, it may be hard to pick up on in this exhausting thread but he and bunny are trying to support the ridiculous claim that all knowledge is faith based.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This thread is a perfect example of the twisting and turning theists have to go through to convince themselves there is any basis for their beliefs other than blind faith (aka brainwashing).

[/ QUOTE ]


All knowledge is based on faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe your knowledge is. My knowledge is based on logical evaluation of information presented to me and the ability to distinguish between what is rational and relevant and what is just noise.

[/ QUOTE ]

That may be your belief. But, in reality, you cannot provide rigorous proof, without premises taken on faith, of a single one of your so-called certainties of logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

The proof is in the pudding, and just as there has never been any scientific advance made by introducing a self-fulfilling concept such as god to explain the universe, there is no need to introduce an ephemeral concept such as faith into my own experience.

[/ QUOTE ]

In that case, give me an example of a “certainty” of science or your experience that is totally without faith as a basis.

[/ QUOTE ]

arithmetic is the easiest one, the whole of mathematics and formal logic to the extent that Ive studied them are others

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, what’s a specific expression in arithmetic or logic whose basic axioms are all exhaustively proved, i.e. not needing to be taken on faith?

[/ QUOTE ]

every arithmetic concept i have ever enocountered is provable either by physical representation or by formal prinicples of induction. nothing at all that needs to be taken on faith

[/ QUOTE ]

It shouldn’t be too difficult for you to provide a specific example then.

[/ QUOTE ]

the sum of all numbers from 1 to n = n*(n+1)/2 if you want one that is non-trivial. oooh excuse me..integers lol

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying there is not a single axiom underlying that expression that has not been exhaustively proved?

[/ QUOTE ]

none that i know of. Since I dont believe in omniscience maybe you can point me to one.

[/ QUOTE ]

n+1 exists for every n.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This thread is a perfect example of the twisting and turning theists have to go through to convince themselves there is any basis for their beliefs other than blind faith (aka brainwashing).

[/ QUOTE ]


All knowledge is based on faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe your knowledge is. My knowledge is based on logical evaluation of information presented to me and the ability to distinguish between what is rational and relevant and what is just noise.

[/ QUOTE ]

That may be your belief. But, in reality, you cannot provide rigorous proof, without premises taken on faith, of a single one of your so-called certainties of logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

The proof is in the pudding, and just as there has never been any scientific advance made by introducing a self-fulfilling concept such as god to explain the universe, there is no need to introduce an ephemeral concept such as faith into my own experience.

[/ QUOTE ]

In that case, give me an example of a “certainty” of science or your experience that is totally without faith as a basis.

[/ QUOTE ]

arithmetic is the easiest one, the whole of mathematics and formal logic to the extent that Ive studied them are others

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, what’s a specific expression in arithmetic or logic whose basic axioms are all exhaustively proved, i.e. not needing to be taken on faith?

[/ QUOTE ]

every arithmetic concept i have ever enocountered is provable either by physical representation or by formal prinicples of induction. nothing at all that needs to be taken on faith

[/ QUOTE ]

It shouldn’t be too difficult for you to provide a specific example then.

[/ QUOTE ]

the sum of all numbers from 1 to n = n*(n+1)/2 if you want one that is non-trivial. oooh excuse me..integers lol

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying there is not a single axiom underlying that expression that has not been exhaustively proved?

[/ QUOTE ]

none that i know of. Since I dont believe in omniscience maybe you can point me to one.

[/ QUOTE ]

n + 1 exists for every n.

[/ QUOTE ]

unless you want to enter an asinine philosophical debate about the meaning of existence, that is an axiom that cant be proven untrue.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
midge, it may be hard to pick up on in this exhausting thread but he and bunny are trying to support the ridiculous claim that all knowledge is faith based.


[/ QUOTE ]

I followed that. It is the last stand of believers. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

It is s sort of way of trying to justify their lack of rationality. Once they cannot anser that their faith is not rational, they need to try to sey that rationality is not rational either. lol

Redefining words, always, trying to hide the inconsistencies.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This thread is a perfect example of the twisting and turning theists have to go through to convince themselves there is any basis for their beliefs other than blind faith (aka brainwashing).

[/ QUOTE ]


All knowledge is based on faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe your knowledge is. My knowledge is based on logical evaluation of information presented to me and the ability to distinguish between what is rational and relevant and what is just noise.

[/ QUOTE ]

That may be your belief. But, in reality, you cannot provide rigorous proof, without premises taken on faith, of a single one of your so-called certainties of logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

The proof is in the pudding, and just as there has never been any scientific advance made by introducing a self-fulfilling concept such as god to explain the universe, there is no need to introduce an ephemeral concept such as faith into my own experience.

[/ QUOTE ]

In that case, give me an example of a “certainty” of science or your experience that is totally without faith as a basis.

[/ QUOTE ]

arithmetic is the easiest one, the whole of mathematics and formal logic to the extent that Ive studied them are others

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, what’s a specific expression in arithmetic or logic whose basic axioms are all exhaustively proved, i.e. not needing to be taken on faith?

[/ QUOTE ]

every arithmetic concept i have ever enocountered is provable either by physical representation or by formal prinicples of induction. nothing at all that needs to be taken on faith

[/ QUOTE ]

It shouldn’t be too difficult for you to provide a specific example then.

[/ QUOTE ]

the sum of all numbers from 1 to n = n*(n+1)/2 if you want one that is non-trivial. oooh excuse me..integers lol

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying there is not a single axiom underlying that expression that has not been exhaustively proved?

[/ QUOTE ]

none that i know of. Since I dont believe in omniscience maybe you can point me to one.

[/ QUOTE ]

n + 1 exists for every n.

[/ QUOTE ]

unless you want to enter an asinine philosophical debate about the meaning of existence, that is an axiom that cant be proven untrue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your concession is accepted.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This thread is a perfect example of the twisting and turning theists have to go through to convince themselves there is any basis for their beliefs other than blind faith (aka brainwashing).

[/ QUOTE ]


All knowledge is based on faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe your knowledge is. My knowledge is based on logical evaluation of information presented to me and the ability to distinguish between what is rational and relevant and what is just noise.

[/ QUOTE ]

That may be your belief. But, in reality, you cannot provide rigorous proof, without premises taken on faith, of a single one of your so-called certainties of logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

The proof is in the pudding, and just as there has never been any scientific advance made by introducing a self-fulfilling concept such as god to explain the universe, there is no need to introduce an ephemeral concept such as faith into my own experience.

[/ QUOTE ]

In that case, give me an example of a “certainty” of science or your experience that is totally without faith as a basis.

[/ QUOTE ]

arithmetic is the easiest one, the whole of mathematics and formal logic to the extent that Ive studied them are others

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, what’s a specific expression in arithmetic or logic whose basic axioms are all exhaustively proved, i.e. not needing to be taken on faith?

[/ QUOTE ]

every arithmetic concept i have ever enocountered is provable either by physical representation or by formal prinicples of induction. nothing at all that needs to be taken on faith

[/ QUOTE ]

It shouldn’t be too difficult for you to provide a specific example then.

[/ QUOTE ]

the sum of all numbers from 1 to n = n*(n+1)/2 if you want one that is non-trivial. oooh excuse me..integers lol

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying there is not a single axiom underlying that expression that has not been exhaustively proved?

[/ QUOTE ]

none that i know of. Since I dont believe in omniscience maybe you can point me to one.

[/ QUOTE ]

n + 1 exists for every n.

[/ QUOTE ]

unless you want to enter an asinine philosophical debate about the meaning of existence, that is an axiom that cant be proven untrue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your concession is accepted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your response is not accepted as anything but empty words. I was hoping for a real response, since the axiom is indeed provable.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This thread is a perfect example of the twisting and turning theists have to go through to convince themselves there is any basis for their beliefs other than blind faith (aka brainwashing).

[/ QUOTE ]


All knowledge is based on faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe your knowledge is. My knowledge is based on logical evaluation of information presented to me and the ability to distinguish between what is rational and relevant and what is just noise.

[/ QUOTE ]

That may be your belief. But, in reality, you cannot provide rigorous proof, without premises taken on faith, of a single one of your so-called certainties of logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

The proof is in the pudding, and just as there has never been any scientific advance made by introducing a self-fulfilling concept such as god to explain the universe, there is no need to introduce an ephemeral concept such as faith into my own experience.

[/ QUOTE ]

In that case, give me an example of a “certainty” of science or your experience that is totally without faith as a basis.

[/ QUOTE ]

arithmetic is the easiest one, the whole of mathematics and formal logic to the extent that Ive studied them are others

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, what’s a specific expression in arithmetic or logic whose basic axioms are all exhaustively proved, i.e. not needing to be taken on faith?

[/ QUOTE ]

every arithmetic concept i have ever enocountered is provable either by physical representation or by formal prinicples of induction. nothing at all that needs to be taken on faith

[/ QUOTE ]

It shouldn’t be too difficult for you to provide a specific example then.

[/ QUOTE ]

the sum of all numbers from 1 to n = n*(n+1)/2 if you want one that is non-trivial. oooh excuse me..integers lol

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying there is not a single axiom underlying that expression that has not been exhaustively proved?

[/ QUOTE ]

none that i know of. Since I dont believe in omniscience maybe you can point me to one.

[/ QUOTE ]

n + 1 exists for every n.

[/ QUOTE ]

unless you want to enter an asinine philosophical debate about the meaning of existence, that is an axiom that cant be proven untrue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your concession is accepted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your response is not accepted as anything but empty words. I was hoping for a real response, since the axiom is indeed provable.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, exhaustively provable (see above). This means all the premises used in your “proof” must themselves be provable, and all the premises used in those next proofs must in turn be provable, ad infinitum.

Go for it.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This thread is a perfect example of the twisting and turning theists have to go through to convince themselves there is any basis for their beliefs other than blind faith (aka brainwashing).

[/ QUOTE ]


All knowledge is based on faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe your knowledge is. My knowledge is based on logical evaluation of information presented to me and the ability to distinguish between what is rational and relevant and what is just noise.

[/ QUOTE ]

That may be your belief. But, in reality, you cannot provide rigorous proof, without premises taken on faith, of a single one of your so-called certainties of logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

The proof is in the pudding, and just as there has never been any scientific advance made by introducing a self-fulfilling concept such as god to explain the universe, there is no need to introduce an ephemeral concept such as faith into my own experience.

[/ QUOTE ]

In that case, give me an example of a “certainty” of science or your experience that is totally without faith as a basis.

[/ QUOTE ]

arithmetic is the easiest one, the whole of mathematics and formal logic to the extent that Ive studied them are others

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, what’s a specific expression in arithmetic or logic whose basic axioms are all exhaustively proved, i.e. not needing to be taken on faith?

[/ QUOTE ]

every arithmetic concept i have ever enocountered is provable either by physical representation or by formal prinicples of induction. nothing at all that needs to be taken on faith

[/ QUOTE ]

It shouldn’t be too difficult for you to provide a specific example then.

[/ QUOTE ]

the sum of all numbers from 1 to n = n*(n+1)/2 if you want one that is non-trivial. oooh excuse me..integers lol

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying there is not a single axiom underlying that expression that has not been exhaustively proved?

[/ QUOTE ]

none that i know of. Since I dont believe in omniscience maybe you can point me to one.

[/ QUOTE ]

n + 1 exists for every n.

[/ QUOTE ]

unless you want to enter an asinine philosophical debate about the meaning of existence, that is an axiom that cant be proven untrue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your concession is accepted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your response is not accepted as anything but empty words. I was hoping for a real response, since the axiom is indeed provable.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, exhaustively provable (see above). This means all the premises used in your “proof” must themselves be provable, and all the premises used in those next proofs must in turn be provable, ad infinitum.

Go for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

you go for it. Google strong induction and find a single premise that isnt either proven or a definition.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This thread is a perfect example of the twisting and turning theists have to go through to convince themselves there is any basis for their beliefs other than blind faith (aka brainwashing).

[/ QUOTE ]


All knowledge is based on faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe your knowledge is. My knowledge is based on logical evaluation of information presented to me and the ability to distinguish between what is rational and relevant and what is just noise.

[/ QUOTE ]

That may be your belief. But, in reality, you cannot provide rigorous proof, without premises taken on faith, of a single one of your so-called certainties of logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

The proof is in the pudding, and just as there has never been any scientific advance made by introducing a self-fulfilling concept such as god to explain the universe, there is no need to introduce an ephemeral concept such as faith into my own experience.

[/ QUOTE ]

In that case, give me an example of a “certainty” of science or your experience that is totally without faith as a basis.

[/ QUOTE ]

arithmetic is the easiest one, the whole of mathematics and formal logic to the extent that Ive studied them are others

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, what’s a specific expression in arithmetic or logic whose basic axioms are all exhaustively proved, i.e. not needing to be taken on faith?

[/ QUOTE ]

every arithmetic concept i have ever enocountered is provable either by physical representation or by formal prinicples of induction. nothing at all that needs to be taken on faith

[/ QUOTE ]

It shouldn’t be too difficult for you to provide a specific example then.

[/ QUOTE ]

the sum of all numbers from 1 to n = n*(n+1)/2 if you want one that is non-trivial. oooh excuse me..integers lol

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying there is not a single axiom underlying that expression that has not been exhaustively proved?

[/ QUOTE ]

none that i know of. Since I dont believe in omniscience maybe you can point me to one.

[/ QUOTE ]

n + 1 exists for every n.

[/ QUOTE ]

unless you want to enter an asinine philosophical debate about the meaning of existence, that is an axiom that cant be proven untrue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your concession is accepted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your response is not accepted as anything but empty words. I was hoping for a real response, since the axiom is indeed provable.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, exhaustively provable (see above). This means all the premises used in your “proof” must themselves be provable, and all the premises used in those next proofs must in turn be provable, ad infinitum.

Go for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

you go for it. Google strong induction and find a single premise that isnt either proven or a definition.

[/ QUOTE ]

A simple yes-or-no question:

Are you saying that your example of a “specific expression in arithmetic or logic whose basic axioms are all exhaustively proved” relies upon one or more “definitions” that has not been proven?

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This thread is a perfect example of the twisting and turning theists have to go through to convince themselves there is any basis for their beliefs other than blind faith (aka brainwashing).

[/ QUOTE ]


All knowledge is based on faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe your knowledge is. My knowledge is based on logical evaluation of information presented to me and the ability to distinguish between what is rational and relevant and what is just noise.

[/ QUOTE ]

That may be your belief. But, in reality, you cannot provide rigorous proof, without premises taken on faith, of a single one of your so-called certainties of logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

The proof is in the pudding, and just as there has never been any scientific advance made by introducing a self-fulfilling concept such as god to explain the universe, there is no need to introduce an ephemeral concept such as faith into my own experience.

[/ QUOTE ]

In that case, give me an example of a “certainty” of science or your experience that is totally without faith as a basis.

[/ QUOTE ]

arithmetic is the easiest one, the whole of mathematics and formal logic to the extent that Ive studied them are others

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, what’s a specific expression in arithmetic or logic whose basic axioms are all exhaustively proved, i.e. not needing to be taken on faith?

[/ QUOTE ]

every arithmetic concept i have ever enocountered is provable either by physical representation or by formal prinicples of induction. nothing at all that needs to be taken on faith

[/ QUOTE ]

It shouldn’t be too difficult for you to provide a specific example then.

[/ QUOTE ]

the sum of all numbers from 1 to n = n*(n+1)/2 if you want one that is non-trivial. oooh excuse me..integers lol

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying there is not a single axiom underlying that expression that has not been exhaustively proved?

[/ QUOTE ]

none that i know of. Since I dont believe in omniscience maybe you can point me to one.

[/ QUOTE ]

n + 1 exists for every n.

[/ QUOTE ]

unless you want to enter an asinine philosophical debate about the meaning of existence, that is an axiom that cant be proven untrue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your concession is accepted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your response is not accepted as anything but empty words. I was hoping for a real response, since the axiom is indeed provable.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, exhaustively provable (see above). This means all the premises used in your “proof” must themselves be provable, and all the premises used in those next proofs must in turn be provable, ad infinitum.

Go for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

you go for it. Google strong induction and find a single premise that isnt either proven or a definition.

[/ QUOTE ]

A simple yes-or-no question:

Are you saying that your example of a “specific expression in arithmetic or logic whose basic axioms are all exhaustively proved” relies upon one or more “definitions” that has not been proven?

[/ QUOTE ]

arithmetic definitions are just verbal/written representations of physical entities that need no "proof" since they are directly observable.

Examples from arithemetic include "number", "integer", "one" "two". If you wont accept the reality of "one" without further proof your only recourse is to claim that everything is imaginary. If everything is imaginary then god and Jesus are imaginary and youve lost all hope of demonstrating otherwise.

if you accept that numbers exist, integers are a subset of all numbers that are directly observable. the proof that n+1 exists for all n is trivial if there are an infinite number of integers, and that is indeed provable.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This thread is a perfect example of the twisting and turning theists have to go through to convince themselves there is any basis for their beliefs other than blind faith (aka brainwashing).

[/ QUOTE ]


All knowledge is based on faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe your knowledge is. My knowledge is based on logical evaluation of information presented to me and the ability to distinguish between what is rational and relevant and what is just noise.

[/ QUOTE ]

That may be your belief. But, in reality, you cannot provide rigorous proof, without premises taken on faith, of a single one of your so-called certainties of logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

The proof is in the pudding, and just as there has never been any scientific advance made by introducing a self-fulfilling concept such as god to explain the universe, there is no need to introduce an ephemeral concept such as faith into my own experience.

[/ QUOTE ]

In that case, give me an example of a “certainty” of science or your experience that is totally without faith as a basis.

[/ QUOTE ]

arithmetic is the easiest one, the whole of mathematics and formal logic to the extent that Ive studied them are others

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, what’s a specific expression in arithmetic or logic whose basic axioms are all exhaustively proved, i.e. not needing to be taken on faith?

[/ QUOTE ]

every arithmetic concept i have ever enocountered is provable either by physical representation or by formal prinicples of induction. nothing at all that needs to be taken on faith

[/ QUOTE ]

It shouldn’t be too difficult for you to provide a specific example then.

[/ QUOTE ]

the sum of all numbers from 1 to n = n*(n+1)/2 if you want one that is non-trivial. oooh excuse me..integers lol

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying there is not a single axiom underlying that expression that has not been exhaustively proved?

[/ QUOTE ]

none that i know of. Since I dont believe in omniscience maybe you can point me to one.

[/ QUOTE ]

n + 1 exists for every n.

[/ QUOTE ]

unless you want to enter an asinine philosophical debate about the meaning of existence, that is an axiom that cant be proven untrue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your concession is accepted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your response is not accepted as anything but empty words. I was hoping for a real response, since the axiom is indeed provable.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, exhaustively provable (see above). This means all the premises used in your “proof” must themselves be provable, and all the premises used in those next proofs must in turn be provable, ad infinitum.

Go for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

you go for it. Google strong induction and find a single premise that isnt either proven or a definition.

[/ QUOTE ]

A simple yes-or-no question:

Are you saying that your example of a “specific expression in arithmetic or logic whose basic axioms are all exhaustively proved” relies upon one or more “definitions” that has not been proven?

[/ QUOTE ]

arithmetic definitions are just verbal/written representations of physical entities that need no "proof" since they are directly observable.

Examples from arithemetic include "number", "integer", "one" "two". If you wont accept the reality of "one" without further proof your only recourse is to claim that everything is imaginary. If everything is imaginary then god and Jesus are imaginary and youve lost all hope of demonstrating otherwise.

if you accept that numbers exist, integers are a subset of all numbers that are directly observable. the proof that n+1 exists for all n is trivial if there are an infinite number of integers, and that is indeed provable.

[/ QUOTE ]

The self-consistency of any axiomatic “definition” is assumed.

Anything derived from it cannot be taken as exhaustively proved.

I’m still waiting for your answer to my question: Does the example you gave rely upon the unrigorous inclusion of “definitions” without proof?

Yes or no?

[BCPVP]

Quit quoting each other.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This thread is a perfect example of the twisting and turning theists have to go through to convince themselves there is any basis for their beliefs other than blind faith (aka brainwashing).

[/ QUOTE ]


All knowledge is based on faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe your knowledge is. My knowledge is based on logical evaluation of information presented to me and the ability to distinguish between what is rational and relevant and what is just noise.

[/ QUOTE ]

That may be your belief. But, in reality, you cannot provide rigorous proof, without premises taken on faith, of a single one of your so-called certainties of logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

The proof is in the pudding, and just as there has never been any scientific advance made by introducing a self-fulfilling concept such as god to explain the universe, there is no need to introduce an ephemeral concept such as faith into my own experience.

[/ QUOTE ]

In that case, give me an example of a “certainty” of science or your experience that is totally without faith as a basis.

[/ QUOTE ]

arithmetic is the easiest one, the whole of mathematics and formal logic to the extent that Ive studied them are others

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, what’s a specific expression in arithmetic or logic whose basic axioms are all exhaustively proved, i.e. not needing to be taken on faith?

[/ QUOTE ]

every arithmetic concept i have ever enocountered is provable either by physical representation or by formal prinicples of induction. nothing at all that needs to be taken on faith

[/ QUOTE ]

It shouldn’t be too difficult for you to provide a specific example then.

[/ QUOTE ]

the sum of all numbers from 1 to n = n*(n+1)/2 if you want one that is non-trivial. oooh excuse me..integers lol

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying there is not a single axiom underlying that expression that has not been exhaustively proved?

[/ QUOTE ]

none that i know of. Since I dont believe in omniscience maybe you can point me to one.

[/ QUOTE ]

n + 1 exists for every n.

[/ QUOTE ]

unless you want to enter an asinine philosophical debate about the meaning of existence, that is an axiom that cant be proven untrue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your concession is accepted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your response is not accepted as anything but empty words. I was hoping for a real response, since the axiom is indeed provable.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, exhaustively provable (see above). This means all the premises used in your “proof” must themselves be provable, and all the premises used in those next proofs must in turn be provable, ad infinitum.

Go for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

you go for it. Google strong induction and find a single premise that isnt either proven or a definition.

[/ QUOTE ]

A simple yes-or-no question:

Are you saying that your example of a “specific expression in arithmetic or logic whose basic axioms are all exhaustively proved” relies upon one or more “definitions” that has not been proven?

[/ QUOTE ]

arithmetic definitions are just verbal/written representations of physical entities that need no "proof" since they are directly observable.

Examples from arithemetic include "number", "integer", "one" "two". If you wont accept the reality of "one" without further proof your only recourse is to claim that everything is imaginary. If everything is imaginary then god and Jesus are imaginary and youve lost all hope of demonstrating otherwise.

if you accept that numbers exist, integers are a subset of all numbers that are directly observable. the proof that n+1 exists for all n is trivial if there are an infinite number of integers, and that is indeed provable.

[/ QUOTE ]

The self-consistency of any axiomatic “definition” is assumed.

Anything derived from it cannot be taken as exhaustively proved.

I’m still waiting for your answer to my question: Does the example you gave rely upon the unrigorous inclusion of “definitions” without proof?

Yes or no?

[/ QUOTE ]

It requires nothing that is not directly observable or otherwise provable. Again, if you refuse to accept the directly observable existence of "one", "two" than you cannot accept the existence of anything.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
Quit quoting each other.

[/ QUOTE ]

we wouldnt want you to get lost

[MidGe]

Quit quoting each other.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This thread is a perfect example of the twisting and turning theists have to go through to convince themselves there is any basis for their beliefs other than blind faith (aka brainwashing).

[/ QUOTE ]


All knowledge is based on faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe your knowledge is. My knowledge is based on logical evaluation of information presented to me and the ability to distinguish between what is rational and relevant and what is just noise.

[/ QUOTE ]

That may be your belief. But, in reality, you cannot provide rigorous proof, without premises taken on faith, of a single one of your so-called certainties of logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

The proof is in the pudding, and just as there has never been any scientific advance made by introducing a self-fulfilling concept such as god to explain the universe, there is no need to introduce an ephemeral concept such as faith into my own experience.

[/ QUOTE ]

In that case, give me an example of a “certainty” of science or your experience that is totally without faith as a basis.

[/ QUOTE ]

arithmetic is the easiest one, the whole of mathematics and formal logic to the extent that Ive studied them are others

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, what’s a specific expression in arithmetic or logic whose basic axioms are all exhaustively proved, i.e. not needing to be taken on faith?

[/ QUOTE ]

every arithmetic concept i have ever enocountered is provable either by physical representation or by formal prinicples of induction. nothing at all that needs to be taken on faith

[/ QUOTE ]

It shouldn’t be too difficult for you to provide a specific example then.

[/ QUOTE ]

the sum of all numbers from 1 to n = n*(n+1)/2 if you want one that is non-trivial. oooh excuse me..integers lol

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying there is not a single axiom underlying that expression that has not been exhaustively proved?

[/ QUOTE ]

none that i know of. Since I dont believe in omniscience maybe you can point me to one.

[/ QUOTE ]

n + 1 exists for every n.

[/ QUOTE ]

unless you want to enter an asinine philosophical debate about the meaning of existence, that is an axiom that cant be proven untrue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your concession is accepted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your response is not accepted as anything but empty words. I was hoping for a real response, since the axiom is indeed provable.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, exhaustively provable (see above). This means all the premises used in your “proof” must themselves be provable, and all the premises used in those next proofs must in turn be provable, ad infinitum.

Go for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

you go for it. Google strong induction and find a single premise that isnt either proven or a definition.

[/ QUOTE ]

A simple yes-or-no question:

Are you saying that your example of a “specific expression in arithmetic or logic whose basic axioms are all exhaustively proved” relies upon one or more “definitions” that has not been proven?

[/ QUOTE ]

arithmetic definitions are just verbal/written representations of physical entities that need no "proof" since they are directly observable.

Examples from arithemetic include "number", "integer", "one" "two". If you wont accept the reality of "one" without further proof your only recourse is to claim that everything is imaginary. If everything is imaginary then god and Jesus are imaginary and youve lost all hope of demonstrating otherwise.

if you accept that numbers exist, integers are a subset of all numbers that are directly observable. the proof that n+1 exists for all n is trivial if there are an infinite number of integers, and that is indeed provable.

[/ QUOTE ]

The self-consistency of any axiomatic “definition” is assumed.

Anything derived from it cannot be taken as exhaustively proved.

I’m still waiting for your answer to my question: Does the example you gave rely upon the unrigorous inclusion of “definitions” without proof?

Yes or no?

[/ QUOTE ]

It requires nothing that is not directly observable or otherwise provable. Again, if you refuse to accept the directly observable existence of "one", "two" than you cannot accept the existence of anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

Second yes-or-no question (answer to the first pending):

Are you saying that everything that is “directly observable” by some standard is to be considered exhaustively proved?

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This thread is a perfect example of the twisting and turning theists have to go through to convince themselves there is any basis for their beliefs other than blind faith (aka brainwashing).

[/ QUOTE ]


All knowledge is based on faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe your knowledge is. My knowledge is based on logical evaluation of information presented to me and the ability to distinguish between what is rational and relevant and what is just noise.

[/ QUOTE ]

That may be your belief. But, in reality, you cannot provide rigorous proof, without premises taken on faith, of a single one of your so-called certainties of logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

The proof is in the pudding, and just as there has never been any scientific advance made by introducing a self-fulfilling concept such as god to explain the universe, there is no need to introduce an ephemeral concept such as faith into my own experience.

[/ QUOTE ]

In that case, give me an example of a “certainty” of science or your experience that is totally without faith as a basis.

[/ QUOTE ]

arithmetic is the easiest one, the whole of mathematics and formal logic to the extent that Ive studied them are others

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, what’s a specific expression in arithmetic or logic whose basic axioms are all exhaustively proved, i.e. not needing to be taken on faith?

[/ QUOTE ]

every arithmetic concept i have ever enocountered is provable either by physical representation or by formal prinicples of induction. nothing at all that needs to be taken on faith

[/ QUOTE ]

It shouldn’t be too difficult for you to provide a specific example then.

[/ QUOTE ]

the sum of all numbers from 1 to n = n*(n+1)/2 if you want one that is non-trivial. oooh excuse me..integers lol

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying there is not a single axiom underlying that expression that has not been exhaustively proved?

[/ QUOTE ]

none that i know of. Since I dont believe in omniscience maybe you can point me to one.

[/ QUOTE ]

n + 1 exists for every n.

[/ QUOTE ]

unless you want to enter an asinine philosophical debate about the meaning of existence, that is an axiom that cant be proven untrue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your concession is accepted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your response is not accepted as anything but empty words. I was hoping for a real response, since the axiom is indeed provable.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, exhaustively provable (see above). This means all the premises used in your “proof” must themselves be provable, and all the premises used in those next proofs must in turn be provable, ad infinitum.

Go for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

you go for it. Google strong induction and find a single premise that isnt either proven or a definition.

[/ QUOTE ]

A simple yes-or-no question:

Are you saying that your example of a “specific expression in arithmetic or logic whose basic axioms are all exhaustively proved” relies upon one or more “definitions” that has not been proven?

[/ QUOTE ]

arithmetic definitions are just verbal/written representations of physical entities that need no "proof" since they are directly observable.

Examples from arithemetic include "number", "integer", "one" "two". If you wont accept the reality of "one" without further proof your only recourse is to claim that everything is imaginary. If everything is imaginary then god and Jesus are imaginary and youve lost all hope of demonstrating otherwise.

if you accept that numbers exist, integers are a subset of all numbers that are directly observable. the proof that n+1 exists for all n is trivial if there are an infinite number of integers, and that is indeed provable.

[/ QUOTE ]

The self-consistency of any axiomatic “definition” is assumed.

Anything derived from it cannot be taken as exhaustively proved.

I’m still waiting for your answer to my question: Does the example you gave rely upon the unrigorous inclusion of “definitions” without proof?

Yes or no?

[/ QUOTE ]

It requires nothing that is not directly observable or otherwise provable. Again, if you refuse to accept the directly observable existence of "one", "two" than you cannot accept the existence of anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

Second yes-or-no question (answer to the first pending):

Are you saying that everything that is “directly observable” by some standard is to be considered exhaustively proved?

[/ QUOTE ]

yes, universal direct observation is the ultimate "rigour" for any concept, unless you want to invoke pointless arguments like "nothing is real", in which case you did too much acid.

good night. maybe by daylight you can come up with something other than existentialism to support the premise.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are you always good? Or is everything you do good because you do it

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose that chez, like you and me, according to your outlandish notions, are not always good since we are made in the image of god.

[/ QUOTE ]
I was asking if he ever deviated from his own moral sense of good or if he just defines everything he does as good.

[/ QUOTE ]
I try not to but of course I do. That beside the point I think.

chez

[nepenthe]

Sorry, Copernicus, but you're invoking an argument against faith that cannot be won.

[MidGe]

Faith is faith... reason is reason.

I find it amazing that the "faithfull" insecurity often manifest as a defence as either faith being reasonable or reason having no different justification to faith.

At the end of the day, the disturbing aspect is that faith gives credence/precedence to an immoral concept.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, Copernicus, but you're invoking an argument against faith that cannot be won.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is not an argument about faith, its an argument about knowledge which doesnt require the introduction of faith.

[madnak]

All knowledge is based on axiomatic assumptions, Copernicus. That much is clear. Reason doesn't function in a vacuum. There's a reason concepts such as the law of identity are so important. And this is a philosophy and mathematics forum, so the "let's not get abstract here" argument certainly doesn't fly.

However, the rational person doesn't accept these axioms as "articles of faith." We believe them because we can't do otherwise, or because they best correspond to reality as we perceive it. Personally I don't even believe in the law of identity, but I can't function unless I accept it as true. I don't believe that anything is 100% certain. So I am very confident that my beliefs are not based on faith.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
midge, it may be hard to pick up on in this exhausting thread but he and bunny are trying to support the ridiculous claim that all knowledge is faith based.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is not my claim at all.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
midge, it may be hard to pick up on in this exhausting thread but he and bunny are trying to support the ridiculous claim that all knowledge is faith based.


[/ QUOTE ]

I followed that. It is the last stand of believers. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

It is s sort of way of trying to justify their lack of rationality. Once they cannot anser that their faith is not rational, they need to try to sey that rationality is not rational either. lol

Redefining words, always, trying to hide the inconsistencies.

[/ QUOTE ]
I do not think this is a fair representation of my position at all. I have never claimed to make solely rational decisions, nor that my theological position is rational. I believe some things for rational reasons and I believe others for irrational reasons. I recently posted my definition of rational reasons for believing something and seemed to find agreement from non-believers.

I dont think that you choose your beliefs - I think you choose whether to test and question them.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
So clearly there is a way of determining what is right and wrong outside of god, because right and wrong are facts of reality, and there can be no being who's actions are good no matter what .

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you believe this is a logical necessity? Or that we haven't encountered one yet, but it is theoretically possible?

[ QUOTE ]
So: have you any idea how to determine right from wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think we all have an inherent ability to do this and an inherent sense of what is right. I also think we can train ourselves to do it better.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
yes, universal direct observation is the ultimate "rigour" for any concept...

[/ QUOTE ]

Are all “universal direct observations” consistent among themselves?

Of course not.

[atrifix]

[ QUOTE ]
My conception of the God we are talking about is an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent creator who exists outside the physical universe.

[/ QUOTE ]You don't want God to be completely extraphysical, though. He has to have some physical causal powers.

[ QUOTE ]
I also label myself a Christian (although I have been told I am not /images/graemlins/tongue.gif).

[/ QUOTE ]One way someone might try to resolve some problems is to posit that there is a difference between the 3-O God of theology/philosophy and the Christian God. The God of the Old Testament certainly doesn't appear to be benevolent all the time.

[ QUOTE ]
Having made the pronouncement that this was the only Good thing he could do to save humanity from ourselves - how could you argue the point and disagree with him?

[/ QUOTE ][ QUOTE ]
(remembering that this whole post is predicated on you having received undeniable proof of his existence)

[/ QUOTE ]Assuming that the 3-O God exists, then one has to logically accept that everything he does is the best action. God cannot be immoral. Also note that Plato's Euthyphro seems to be correct, e.g., there is a morality outside of God. That doesn't preclude there being an omnibenevolent being, however: one can easily hold that there is some sense of "goodness" and God just happens to coincide with it perfectly (Plato may have even held this view).

[ QUOTE ]
The problem of evil is definitely the most difficult for us theists to explain, in my opinion. I would make the point that God is too big for you to understand but agree that this explanation of evil is not going to be very persuasive to a non-believer. The only claim I would make is that it is internally consistent.

[/ QUOTE ]I don't think this is really consistent, unless you mean to deny that there is evil in the world (or, that creating a world better than this one entails a logical contradiction). That doesn't seem to be right--we can imagine a world almost exactly the same as this one, but with one less act of evil, with no apparent logical contradiction. AFAIK, the main responses to the problem of evil involve soul-building/contrast and free will. I don't know enough about philosophy of religion to comment on this. Perhaps someone will enlighten me.

[atrifix]

[ QUOTE ]
yes, universal direct observation is the ultimate "rigour" for any concept, unless you want to invoke pointless arguments like "nothing is real", in which case you did too much acid.

[/ QUOTE ]This is not necessary. All that's necessary is that it is possible that nothing is real.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
All that's necessary is that it is possible that nothing is real.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem the scientific faithful have is that their dogma is not scientific.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So clearly there is a way of determining what is right and wrong outside of god, because right and wrong are facts of reality, and there can be no being who's actions are good no matter what .

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you believe this is a logical necessity? Or that we haven't encountered one yet, but it is theoretically possible?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a logical necessity. Either universal preferred behaviour exists for moral agents or it doesn't. If it does then it applies to actions. And if an action is universally disfavoured then how can the action of a certain being be outside of it; that would make the whole concept ridiculous.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So: have you any idea how to determine right from wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think we all have an inherent ability to do this and an inherent sense of what is right. I also think we can train ourselves to do it better.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's true that humans have a biological sense of morality. But we're also culturally conditioned (read: have our natural tendencies destroyed). So: do you have any idea how to determine right from wrong objectively? If universally preferred behaviour exists then it must be possible; but if we can't then how can we ever judge someone's actions? The problem with people who are unable to do this is that they only have one way of resolving disputes: violence. And the only political structure they can adhere to is a dictatorship, because truth and morality can only be 'revealed' and enforced.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
You don't want God to be completely extraphysical, though. He has to have some physical causal powers.

[/ QUOTE ]
True - I meant to imply this within omnipotent.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Having made the pronouncement that this was the only Good thing he could do to save humanity from ourselves - how could you argue the point and disagree with him?

[/ QUOTE ][ QUOTE ]
(remembering that this whole post is predicated on you having received undeniable proof of his existence)

[/ QUOTE ]Assuming that the 3-O God exists, then one has to logically accept that everything he does is the best action. God cannot be immoral. Also note that Plato's Euthyphro seems to be correct, e.g., there is a morality outside of God. That doesn't preclude there being an omnibenevolent being, however: one can easily hold that there is some sense of "goodness" and God just happens to coincide with it perfectly (Plato may have even held this view).

[/ QUOTE ]
My whole opening post was stupid - I didnt mean to include benevolence (this was just a follow up question arising from another thread and I didnt think it through clearly). My real question is really given the undeniable existence of an omnipotent, omniscient creator who claims to be benevolent - could you doubt him?

[ QUOTE ]
The problem of evil is definitely the most difficult for us theists to explain, in my opinion. I would make the point that God is too big for you to understand but agree that this explanation of evil is not going to be very persuasive to a non-believer. The only claim I would make is that it is internally consistent.

[/ QUOTE ]I don't think this is really consistent, unless you mean to deny that there is evil in the world (or, that creating a world better than this one entails a logical contradiction). That doesn't seem to be right--we can imagine a world almost exactly the same as this one, but with one less act of evil, with no apparent logical contradiction.

[/ QUOTE ]
The defence that I feel is consistent is to say "I dont know the answer, nor understand why God is allowing all this stuff to happen. But I believe he is omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent so it must all work out better this way than any other." I hasten to restate - this is not an attempt to persuade a non-believer (it certainly doesnt persuade me /images/graemlins/tongue.gif) but I do think it is an internally consistent answer to "Why is there evil?"

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
This is a logical necessity. Either universal preferred behaviour exists for moral agents or it doesn't. If it does then it applies to actions. And if an action is universally disfavoured then how can the action of a certain being be outside of it; that would make the whole concept ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont understand your point here. Are you saying it is ridiculous to posit the hypothetical existence of a moral agent who always choses to act in a good way?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So: have you any idea how to determine right from wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think we all have an inherent ability to do this and an inherent sense of what is right. I also think we can train ourselves to do it better.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's true that humans have a biological sense of morality. But we're also culturally conditioned (read: have our natural tendencies destroyed). So: do you have any idea how to determine right from wrong objectively? If universally preferred behaviour exists then it must be possible; but if we can't then how can we ever judge someone's actions? The problem with people who are unable to do this is that they only have one way of resolving disputes: violence. And the only political structure they can adhere to is a dictatorship, because truth and morality can only be 'revealed' and enforced.

[/ QUOTE ]
I thought I had answered your question. I believe I can discern right from wrong based on my moral code. As always with my beliefs, some are correct and some are incorrect and I am helpless to identify which are which. The best I can do is to question them and test them against other beliefs I have. So I have some beliefs about what actions are objectively right and what actions are objectively wrong. I agree that without doing this I would be unable to judge someone's actions (my own included) as right or wrong.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How in the blue flying [censored] does 'killing' your son save humanity?

If god really does exist, then he is not worthy of worship, as he doesn't respect you. What kind of almighty being needs to be worshipped, let alone begs for our worship? The size of his ego must be matched only by his insecurity.

[/ QUOTE ]
1) Jesus died because humanity is sinful and could never repay the sin they had caused.
2) God needs nothing from us. He deserves worship, but does not need it nor does he beg for it.

[/ QUOTE ]
If god exist then he made us different. He made you to worship but he made me with a different morality that prohibits worship although love and loyalty are good.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

God gave you a brain to decide if those morals are correct

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How in the blue flying [censored] does 'killing' your son save humanity?

If god really does exist, then he is not worthy of worship, as he doesn't respect you. What kind of almighty being needs to be worshipped, let alone begs for our worship? The size of his ego must be matched only by his insecurity.

[/ QUOTE ]
1) Jesus died because humanity is sinful and could never repay the sin they had caused.
2) God needs nothing from us. He deserves worship, but does not need it nor does he beg for it.

[/ QUOTE ]
If god exist then he made us different. He made you to worship but he made me with a different morality that prohibits worship although love and loyalty are good.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

God gave you a brain to decide if those morals are correct

[/ QUOTE ]
If god exists then that's precisely my point. Txs

chez

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
midge, it may be hard to pick up on in this exhausting thread but he and bunny are trying to support the ridiculous claim that all knowledge is faith based.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is not my claim at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was sharkey's claim and you jumped into it with posts consistent with that claim.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
midge, it may be hard to pick up on in this exhausting thread but he and bunny are trying to support the ridiculous claim that all knowledge is faith based.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is not my claim at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was sharkey's claim and you jumped into it with posts consistent with that claim.

[/ QUOTE ]

I cant see any post I've made representing this position and it's certainly not my view.

[godBoy]

You can purchase a satanic bible from dymocks. Or you could search Wikipedia for ohhh.. say 'devil worship'.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
You can purchase a satanic bible from dymocks. Or you could search Wikipedia for ohhh.. say 'devil worship'.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jusr get the ordinary bible... it is evil enough... I know, I have read it a number of times in its entirety.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
You can purchase a satanic bible from dymocks. Or you could search Wikipedia for ohhh.. say 'devil worship'.

[/ QUOTE ]

You should really look at the sources you cite. From the Wikipedia article:

Satanic cults

The existence of large networks of organized Satanists involved in illegal activities, murder, and child abuse is occasionally claimed, often by fundamentalist religious movements. Those claims have never been substantiated and are widely believed to be untrue.

None of the sects described in the article believe in the Chrsitian God as described by the bible, and only one of them believes that there is any truth to the bible.