|
|
#11
11-03-2006, 11:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Abour rejecting God
[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">The thing is that God is much, much, much more likely to be right than us on whats right and wrong. </font> How can there be anything less than 100% chance that He is more likely to be right? It's His ball, His game, His reality. [/ QUOTE ] There's nothing that says god is honest. It may be impossible that he'd be mistaken - but it's certainly possible he could lie. 
|
|
#12
11-03-2006, 11:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Abour rejecting God
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] <font color="blue">The thing is that God is much, much, much more likely to be right than us on whats right and wrong. </font> How can there be anything less than 100% chance that He is more likely to be right? It's His ball, His game, His reality. [/ QUOTE ] There's nothing that says god is honest. It may be impossible that he'd be mistaken - but it's certainly possible he could lie. [/ QUOTE ] and if god defines good then it can be good to lie [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] chez
|
|
#16
11-03-2006, 11:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Abour rejecting God
[ QUOTE ]
Look [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]... That's technically right. But the 'if reality was different some other conclusion could be correct' objection is always correct. [/ QUOTE ] Okay, I concede that but the premise that god defines right and wrong is just gibberish. There is no reality in which suffering is good in itself. chez
|
|
#17
11-03-2006, 11:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Abour rejecting God
If you start talking about the moral content of actions 'in themselves' you have to draw an arbitrary line since all actions are interactive. But I certainly wouldn't like to argue that this concept of god is not a ridiculous contradiction for any number of other reasons.
|
|
#18
11-03-2006, 11:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Abour rejecting God
[ QUOTE ]
If you start talking about the moral content of actions 'in themselves' you have to draw an arbitrary line since all actions are interactive. But I certainly wouldn't like to argue that this concept of god is not a ridiculous contradiction for any number of other reasons. [/ QUOTE ] I mean that if god is causing suffering then he can't just decare it good but has to justify it in terms of something else - either a future benefit to the sufferer or benefits to others. Even the nutters who have saints pleasuring themselves in relief at the suffering of others in hell recognise the need to justify the suffering. Unlike good things, if someone is happy then it needs no further justification. The reverse is true, future downsides or harm to others is necessary to argue that it isn't good. God cannot change this, he can make it so there's nothing we can do about it but that doesn't make it good. chez
|
|
#19
11-03-2006, 11:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Abour rejecting God
But that's an anthrocentric viewpoint. It's entirely likely that, if there is an objective good out there, defined by god or not, its yardstick and goal is not maximizing human happiness.
That contradiction does arise if you wanted to talk about god declaring suffering 'enjoyable' or similar tho - so point taken.
|
|
#20
11-03-2006, 11:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Abour rejecting God
<font color="blue">There's nothing that says god is honest. It may be impossible that he'd be mistaken - but it's certainly possible he could lie. </font>
Well yeah, but that gets back to the guy pointing a gun at your head and ordering you to give him your money or he'll shoot you. Maybe he'll shoot you anyway, but if you don't give him your money he's sure to shoot you. So what's the most logical thing to do given the alternative?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
