Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Would you prefer if there was a god?

1235»

Comments

  • #122
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    philologos wrote: »
    King Mob: I simply work as most people do. I look around me and assess what makes sense and what doesn't. What has history behind it and what doesn't. What corresponds to reality and what doesn't. I find that Christianity does these things. If others want to disagree, they are free and open to post their objections. I don't know everything and neither do you, but there hits a point that you and I have to decide what we make of this universe and of its Creator and I've done that on the basis of what seems logical and reasonable to me. Atheism simply doesn't.
    Except when we point out all the flaws in the "logic" of Christianity, you ignore them, refuse to address or acknowledge the point and continue on as if we never made the point at all even though you know that you can't address the points you've ignored.

    For example, from my posts you are ignoring contradictions such as:
    • that evil acts become good when God says they do.
    • That God wanted to test whether Abraham would give up his son while already spoiling it by telling Abraham he wouldn't have to.
    • That God needed a test in the first place despite being all knowing.
    • That God didn't allow Abraham to just kill his son, then bring him back to life.
    • That God did this to demonstrate that child sacrifice was wrong despite never actually saying this or having anyone around to demonstrate this at all.
    • That God would choose a way to demonstrate this that was both pointless and cruel rather than the usual way he declared things.

    Plus you have ignored the very simple questions I've been asking you as you usually do when they get too hard or to direct.
    I asked you what sin children could have possibly committed to deserve to be murdered to further another's goal?
    The fact that I have to ask this question at all shows that not only is your God pure evil, your moral code is ultimately flawed and not as simple and strict as you like to pretend.

    So yea, if you ignore all of this and the points others have made, then yea I suppose you could consider Christianity logical.
    But that would be dishonest.


  • #123
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    I've answered your alleged contradictions head on. I think you're confusing "ignoring" with strongly disagreeing with what you're saying. If that is the line of discussion we're going down where you won't be satisfied until I agree with your atheistic worldview, then count me out. That's not a discussion worth having.


  • #124
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,465 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    philologos wrote: »
    I've answered your alleged contradictions head on.
    You haven't. WRT to the Euthyprho Dilemma, you have dismissed it as nonsensical (while taking a position on it all the same). You haven't followed up on any of the implications of your position and seem uninterested in them.

    And that's aside from the more basic and more serious problem that you are basing your entire worldview upon how you want things to be, while ignoring any questions which assume that reality might be something else.

    It's the most extreme case of self-administered confirmation bias I've seen.


  • #125
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    It is nonsensical and I have explained why already. Admittedly, I will give Plato the benefit of the doubt in so far as I haven't read the dialogue. It's essentially asking if God is bound by an external moral standard.
    "Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?"
    This will do.

    Essentially, it's a question to be answered rather than anything that presents a huge difficulty to Christianity. I fall on the side of what is morally right being so because it was declared by God. God having created all things as far as Christians are concerned, He's omniscient, and as a result knows what is best for His creation. That's quite a fair basis for ethical action, and as a source of ethical principles.

    Atheism can't claim any form of binding ethical standard. Christianity can provided that God exists. If God exists then His judgement will be binding on all at the end of time when we have to make an account before Him.

    Where's the big issue from this question that Plato poses?


  • #126
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    philologos wrote: »
    I've answered your alleged contradictions head on. I think you're confusing "ignoring" with strongly disagreeing with what you're saying. If that is the line of discussion we're going down where you won't be satisfied until I agree with your atheistic worldview, then count me out. That's not a discussion worth having.
    You have not addressed any of those ones I posted as they are all from a post you did not quote or reply to in full.
    I'm not confusing "ignoring" with strongly disagreeing because you did not even acknowledge them.

    Furthermore, the odd time you do address something, simply saying that it's nonsensical or irrelevant etc without actually explaining why is exactly as bad as ignoring it.

    So, please either point out where you have specifically addressed those points from my last point (for a start) or address them now.

    Cause I'm not expecting you to suddenly start argeeing with me, just that you actually engage in a honest discussion and address the points that are made to you.
    Otherwise, if you would prefer to stick to your usual behavior of ignoring them all and pretending that they don't exist, then that's not a discussion worth having.[


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    philologos wrote: »
    Where's the big issue from this question that Plato poses?
    Because your answer means that you must justify that idea killing children is ok. (Which again is a question you've yet to answer directly.)

    So again I repeat the simple questions you can't answer:
    Is one person forcing a person to kill their child an evil act, yes or no?
    Is it an evil act if God does it?


  • #128
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    I have a feeling that this is going to be one of these topics where you post something, I respond, you post complaining that I've not responded, I claim I have, so on and so forth in an near-infinite loop.

    I'm really not up for that to be honest with you. I'd rather not have people engage in such tactics. Also, if you're going to do this, I suggest that you should bring up some passages, which I'd like to share on the Atheist & Christian debate thread where we can get into them. I believe that every judgement of God is just. If you're going to refer to specific passages, we need the reference and verse, and I think it's more valuable if I present them to other Christians also. I'm happy to look specifically at passages. I'm not happy to have you just say, is that correct without having referenced any specific Scripture yet. If you do that then I and others are happy to address your claim rather than trying to find out what you have in mind when you're phrasing these questions.

    That's only fair and reasonable.


  • #129
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,989 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    philologos wrote: »
    Essentially, it's a question to be answered rather than anything that presents a huge difficulty to Christianity. I fall on the side of what is morally right being so because it was declared by God. God having created all things as far as Christians are concerned, He's omniscient, and as a result knows what is best
    If the god recogised it as being best, then it was already right before he made the declaration that it was right.
    Try again!


  • #130
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    recedite wrote: »
    If the god recogised it as being best, then it was already right before he made the declaration that it was right.
    Try again!

    What's your point? God knew that it right because right is what He defines it to be. Right is what agrees with God's aims, wrong is what rages against it. He declared Creation as He intended it.


  • #131
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    philologos wrote: »
    I have a feeling that this is going to be one of these topics where you post something, I respond, you post complaining that I've not responded, I claim I have, so on and so forth in an near-infinite loop.

    I'm really not up for that to be honest with you. I'd rather not have people engage in such tactics.
    But you are not being honest with me.
    I specifically asked you to point out where you have addressed points I outlined in my prior post to substantiate the claim. You didn't.

    So again, if you are going to accuse me of something, back it up.
    philologos wrote: »
    Also, if you're going to do this, I suggest that you should bring up some passages, which I'd like to share on the Atheist & Christian debate thread where we can get into them.
    No, I will discuss them here where they are relevant to the point I am making.
    philologos wrote: »
    That's only fair and reasonable.
    I would love to be fair and reasonable Philologos but you are not being either.
    So much so that you cannot answer a simple yes or no question:
    Is one person forcing a person to kill their child an evil act, yes or no?
    Is it an evil act if God does it yes or no?


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    How am I supposed to understand what you're referring to in the Bible if you're not specifically mentioning what passages you're talking about? I don't believe I've been dishonest in any shape or form in responding to your posts. Indeed, if this is all this discussion has to offer, then respectfully, I'd rather not. I'm tired of your tactics.


  • #133
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    philologos wrote: »
    How am I supposed to understand what you're referring to in the Bible if you're not specifically mentioning what passages?
    I specifically mentioned the passages to the example I was using, specifically to point out a lie you told about God not wanting to test Abraham. And I would have thought it was clear which story I was using.
    philologos wrote: »
    I don't believe I've been dishonest in any shape or form in responding to your posts. Indeed, if this is all this discussion has to offer, then respectfully, I'd rather not. I'm tired of your tactics.
    And again, when I address this, you ignore it.
    I asked you specifically to show exactly where you had addressed points I was claiming you ignored.
    Not only did you not do this, you did not even acknowledge the question despite me asking it for the third time now.
    So can you please substantiate the claim you are making before you quit in a huff, otherwise it looks exactly like you are lying, then ignoring people's points.

    Or you could just answer a simple yes or no question...


  • #134
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Looking right back through the thread, you've only linked for the Abraham example which I've dealt with earlier. I said very clearly that God was justified to test Abraham. I've said that wasn't immoral very clearly. I believe God was entirely in his rights to test Abraham in this way, and I also addressed your response saying how you feel that God could have done it better.

    Yet you're moaning that I've not gone through this with you?
    I would love to be fair and reasonable Philologos but you are not being either. So much so that you cannot answer a simple yes or no question: Is one person forcing a person to kill their child an evil act, yes or no? Is it an evil act if God does it yes or no?
    Also, God didn't force Abraham to kill his child. So, what other passage are you using? This is a lot to do with you rather than me. You're questions are clearly disingenuous, I've every right to criticise them. If you're going to pull out the lying card in the next post, I'm done.


  • #135
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    philologos wrote: »
    It is nonsensical and I have explained why already. Admittedly, I will give Plato the benefit of the doubt in so far as I haven't read the dialogue. It's essentially asking if God is bound by an external moral standard.

    This will do.

    Essentially, it's a question to be answered rather than anything that presents a huge difficulty to Christianity. I fall on the side of what is morally right being so because it was declared by God. God having created all things as far as Christians are concerned, He's omniscient, and as a result knows what is best for His creation. That's quite a fair basis for ethical action, and as a source of ethical principles.

    See the problem there is you have a contradiction between the concept of God knowing what is best for us (thus what is best for us is an objective concept that God is aware of, rather than determines) and all good and morality stemming from God himself.

    All you have done is say that God knows what is best for us and thus what he decides is moral, but of course acting in a way that is best for us is in itself a moral action. If God isn't deciding what is best for us then he isn't decide what is moral either. You couldn't have something being best for us but God deciding that it is moral to act in a way counter to this.

    If you like you can simply rephrase the question

    Is what is best for us commanded by God because it is what is best for us (ie what is best for us exists objectively and God is aware of it), or is what is best for us best for us because it is commanded by God (ie what ever God arbitrarily decides is best is best simply by virtue of it being decided by God)?
    philologos wrote: »
    Where's the big issue from this question that Plato poses?

    The big issue is that in your some what naive dismissal of the problem you have in fact fallen straight into it with you declaration that God both knows what is best for us and decides what is good and evil.

    Or to put it another way, if God simply knows what is best for us then this concept of what is best for us exists independently to God. God could not know it, or not exist, and it would be still what is best for us.

    If on the other hand "what is best for us" requires that God exists then it is simply a arbitrary declaration by God, since God cannot call on any knowledge outside himself to determine it. It is what ever God wants it to be but it can't be based on any higher notions of what is or isn't the best course of action to take for humans. It must be, by definition arbitrary.

    Like Robin said, Plato knew what he was talking about. If you don't see the big deal I think it is because you aren't fully contemplating the conclusions of what each option means in relation to a god. You demonstrate this in your post above where you introduce both the concept of God knowing what is best and deciding what is best.


  • #136
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    ^^ This would be changing the question, but let's try it.

    God decides what is good and what is evil, and He desires for us to live as He intended for us to live, and has given us standards to guide us in doing that. Following Him, ultimately is what He has determined is best for us, and indeed if God has created us, He knows intimately how humanity functions and what humanity requires.

    There's no need to even mention the word "best", "better", or anything else. Although these things are as He determined. The Creator simply knows intrinsically about how we function, because He made us. We share a common likeness with Him, if we are willing to reflect His standard in the world. Rebellion against God, is evil precisely because it is contrary to what is good, and will ultimately lead to rightful condemnation before Him. We're without excuse.

    That's the most helpful post I've had on this thread so far, so thank you.


  • #137
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    philologos wrote: »
    Looking right back through the thread, you've only linked for the Abraham example which I've dealt with earlier. I said very clearly that God was justified to test Abraham.

    I've said that wasn't immoral very clearly. I believe God was entirely in his rights to test Abraham in this way,
    And I explained why none of these claims actually address any of my points.
    I did not ask you if the act was justified. I asked you whether it was evil.
    Further I also asked you what was the reason about a test at all, which is not explained in the above.
    philologos wrote: »
    and I also addressed your response saying how you feel that God could have done it better.
    Where did you do this? Please quote the exact place you think you did this.
    philologos wrote: »
    Yet you're moaning that I've not gone through this with you?
    You didn't, you danced around the point and answered a different question that I did not ask and completely avoided other points I made in addition.
    So yea, I'm moaning about you not answering what is presented to you.
    philologos wrote: »
    Also, God didn't force Abraham to kill his child.
    This is not an answer to the question. I wasn't talking about God doing this, or even the specific circumstances.
    I was going to eventually flesh it out to match the circumstances, but this would require other questions, which you would likely not answer. (and since you have not answered the original one, you can see my point.)
    For example, had we eventually gotten this far, I would ask the obvious question:So then is it ok for a person to force another to kill their child as long as they stop him at the very last minute?
    philologos wrote: »
    So, what other passage are you using?
    For what philologos? What passages am I using that need to be referenced?
    The story of Abraham? If this is not self explanatory it's: Genesis 22.
    What is the point you are trying to make with this?
    philologos wrote: »
    This is a lot to do with you rather than me. You're questions are clearly disingenuous, I've every right to criticise them.
    I would love you to criticise them, cause that would mean you are actually acknowleding a point for a change.
    philologos wrote: »
    If you're going to pull out the lying card in the next post, I'm done.
    Well for one, I didn't accuse you of lying, just asked you to back up your own accusations that I am lying.
    Which you haven't done btw.


  • #138
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    philologos wrote: »
    God decides what is good and what is evil, and He desires for us to live as He intended for us to live, and has given us standards to guide us in doing that. Following Him, ultimately is what He has determined is best for us, and indeed if God has created us, He knows intimately how humanity functions and what humanity requires.

    And he decides this based on what? If he is not appealing to any external notions of morality (ie is is good that we do not suffer) then his decisions would be entirely arbitrary.
    philologos wrote: »
    The Creator simply knows intrinsically about how we function, because He made us.

    But how we function is independent to morality. We will suffer and starve if we don't get food. This is a product of how we function, but that says nothing about the morality of letting someone starve.

    You could say that God did not create us to suffer and starve therefore allowing someone to suffer and starve goes against God's plan for us, so it is evil by definition.

    But that simply raises the further question of why does God not want us to suffer and starve.

    Was it simply an arbitrary decision, or does God not want us to suffer and starve because there is some sort of universal notion that it is morally wrong for sentient life to suffer and die and God knows this to be the case. If that is it then there is a concept (e.g. it is wrong to allow the unnecessary suffering of life forms that are conscious of this pain) that exists beyond God, that God is simply aware of, and reflects it in his actions, but does not determine it.

    If on the other hand there is no concept that God defers to then it is simply arbitrary. This raises the question of whether such decisions have any meaning. God could have just as easily decided that yes we are to suffer and starve and that is "good" simply because God decided it. Since these decisions do not relate back to any thing they are simply what ever whim God had when making us. You could almost think of them as random since God by definition cannot refer to any external system to decide what he will or won't do.

    While for the sake of briefness we should probably still to the moral question, since that is the context of the problem, this issue actually relates to all of God's decisions. It is relatively easy to argue that if God is the source of all things then his decisions are, by definition, random and meaningless. That is probably not a concept most religious people are happy with, hence the dilemma.


  • #139
    safarigirl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 45 ✭safarigirl


    I wish there was a god. I wish there was heaven, i wish i could see my mum again and if i could i wouldnt care want sort of god he was i would worship him everyday if got to spend even 5 minutes with my mum.


Advertisement