tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post3131417543086447461..comments2024-03-25T17:35:02.238-04:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: A Double Standard for Morality?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger53125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-16013720832807528662007-05-14T16:41:00.000-04:002007-05-14T16:41:00.000-04:00Morality is obedience to God.Immorality is disobed...Morality is obedience to God.<BR/><BR/>Immorality is disobedience to God.Michael Ejercitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10707862691472293497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-7086709555438004602007-04-04T11:27:00.000-04:002007-04-04T11:27:00.000-04:00Now, I’m not sure what you mean by (1). Perhaps yo...<I>Now, I’m not sure what you mean by (1). Perhaps you mean:<BR/>(1*) Human morality requires verbal justification for all acts of harm.</I><BR/><BR/>Not necessarily verbal, but as I stated in my previous post:<BR/><BR/>"If I kill a man, it is not sufficient for me to say "I killed him, so I must have had a good reason." No, I MUST justify myself to the interested parties."<BR/><BR/>Interested parties must know the justification. If all interested parties knew of the justification beforehand, you wouldn't have to say a word. But you can't just take an evil action and presume justification in human morality, as demonstrated by my example above.<BR/><BR/><I>Someone who commits/allows a evil is perfectly free to ignore me.</I><BR/><BR/>They are? So, it would be in following with human morality for me to kill your family and remain silent on the issue, so long as I thought that I was justified? Are you sure that this is the morality? The Judeo-Christian ethic does not hold this to be so. The Bible is full of references to the moral need for justification of evil acts to interested parties (e.g. Numbers 22-25). <BR/><BR/><I>Suppose I walk in the house, and tell my son that he must go to bed without any dinner. He says, “Why?” and I am silent. What follows from this? I can tell you what doesn’t follow – it doesn’t follow that I have no good reason for my action.</I><BR/><BR/>No, what follows is not that the original act is evil. What follows is that, if the original act was evil and you refuse to justify it to interested parties, your refusal is evil. Human morality does not assume justification for evil acts. Your analogy causes the lay reader difficulty because you chose an original action that is of questionable to marginal evil so as to minimalize the evil of refusing to provide a justification. Change it to beating your son within an inch of his life and refusing to say why, then see how it stands up. <BR/><BR/>If a father beats his son within an inch of his life, but refuses to tell his son or anyone else why, has he necessarily commited an evil act? I say yes, even if the original beating was fully justified; what do you say?<BR/><BR/><I>Perhaps his silence is just one more evil, for which God has a good reason – a reason to which we aren’t privy.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, but then according to human morality, he must provide justification for <I>that</I> evil, etc., etc., <I>ad infinitum</I>. So, this is no escape. Unless you claim that evil does not need to be justified to interested parties in human morality, then you cannot squirm out of the contradiction here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-14432554438165715702007-04-04T00:09:00.000-04:002007-04-04T00:09:00.000-04:00Hi Chris,Which one is more plausible? If you were ...Hi Chris,<BR/><BR/><I>Which one is more plausible? If you were in a debate, which one would you want to defend? At least (1) stands a good chance of being true, and could actually be proven. I’m not sure we could ever prove (2). My claim that God might have reasons for allowing evil is the same kind of claim as (1). All I have to do is come up with some possible scenario that justifies whatever evil we are considering. (Alvin Plantinga’s free will defense is just such a scenario.)</I><BR/><BR/>I would take the the side of other life in the universe because it is plausible. It is plausible because coincidences happen. In a closed system similar things can happen more that once as long as they keep happening. A weak example is get enough people together in a room and you'll find some of them have the same birthday. Scientific theories have developed independently of each other in the same period. They had the same idea at the same time. The lights go out when the phone rings coincidentally etc etc etc. <BR/><BR/>Excuse me if I get my facts wrong, but the search for ET started with an idea from frank drake with his equation that showed that INTELLIGENT life was a probability. ET life was more probable. That was a REASON not a faith. Extremophiles on earth show us that life can exist in very harsh environments and the recent discovery of life forms that depend on Hydrogen Peroxide and another that depends on radiation show us what to look for. It is theorized now that the Mars landers in the seventies may have some confusing data that can be explained by hydrogen based organisms. It seems likely that if there is life out there we would find it on planets similar to ours because we know what to look for and how it works here. It is plausible that we have encountered life and not recognized it even here on earth. These are REASONS not faith.<BR/><BR/><I> You can’t say that the proposition “God is good” is false without first accepting that God exists. Similarly, we can’t really say that the proposition “Gandalf is good” is true or false.</I><BR/><BR/>I don't need to accept that god exists to say that claims about his goodness are false. If you said Darth Vader was good, I'd say he wasn't and give you REASONS based on events that happened in the movie. If you tell me that darth vader was good and that he was good in his own way, we'd be arguing similarly as we are now.<BR/><BR/>But since Gandalf and Darth Vader don't exist, it would be literary criticism. Much as this is.<BR/><BR/>Chris if you concede the Hindu gods are possible, then you must be saying that it is possible that Yahweh is not alone, that is not very characteristic of a Christian.<BR/><BR/>Crazy claims about reasoning? What is evidence? I never said Christians are "dumb", only that they cannot reason properly about things having to do with god. Let me explain. <BR/><BR/>I think you know what evidence is. For example, faith healers. They don’t work. If they did, it would be evidence. Do you really want me to bring up the miracles / prayers thing again? Where is the book that JESUS wrote, where are the pictures or busts of JESUS, where is all the evidence characteristic of a person that lived in his time? I can show you the financial records of a woman from jesus time and the complaint of a man about getting his jacket back he made to a local government member. If he existed, the evidence is slight. Not what you'd expect from god on earth, unless you want to say that we have no right to say what we could expect of god on earth.<BR/><BR/>Reasoning is based on fact. Truth is based in fact. Go look up the definitions of "truth, fact, reason" then look up "belief, faith,". You will find that in our language, truth and reason depend on fact. Fact is something verifiable. Look up belief and faith you will see that they depend on truth. They converge on Fact. If you have no verifiable god then you have no fact of god and the rest comes undone. That is why I say that Christianity has no rational basis, and Christians cannot properly reason about it because god is not verifiable. I think conflicting theologies are an indicator of that. Catholics, protestants and different denominations of each are an indicator of that. <BR/><BR/>If you keep looking and don't find something where it should be, chances are it is not there. Negative proof principle. I know this is defeasible based on new information, but none has popped up so I keep saying it.<BR/><BR/>I was using other Christians as an example. But your arguments based on 'possibility' are not as easy to defend as you think. As John pointed out to you earlier, there is a difference between possible and plausible. Plausible is based on reason, reason is based on fact. Presumption is based on reasonable likelihood. It is possible that god exists but not plausible. It is possible that life exists or has existed on Mars and more plausible based on new information about this hydrogen based life. <BR/><BR/>I am arguing against your points, its just that I am trying to attack the framework instead of the detail. If I can cut off your supply line maybe you will run out of possibilities and start arguing plausibilities.<BR/><BR/>yes I have read philosophy and I am well aware of the classical arguments for god and I am surprised that they were taken seriously. On a similar note, If I remember right, Decartes came up with the idea that nothing but ourselves can escape doubt, but then Popper came up with the idea of falsifiability and it worked better for science. But these are examples of gaining knowledge. We make a guess, test it, it if works, then we use it to make another guess (this is where presumption fits). In this way we build up useful information and a knowledge base that we can do useful things with. We throw out the old and less useful. You can't do that with Dogma. And the scientific method has added more good in the world than Christianity. Want to dispute that? Stop going to the doctor and start praying instead. Most cultures in the world buy into the scientific method, or at least it is widely accepted cross culturally, you can't say that about any given religion. Why is that? I would say it is based on verifiability.<BR/><BR/>And I am saying that inconsistencies in the Bible are an indicator that god as he is purported to be had nothing to do with it.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-51684278790665702342007-04-03T19:56:00.000-04:002007-04-03T19:56:00.000-04:00Hey Lee –We’re probably close to the end of this t...<B>Hey Lee –</B><BR/><BR/>We’re probably close to the end of this thread. I’ll let you and the others have the last word after this post.<BR/><BR/><I>Do you know what [God’s reasons for allowing evil] might be? . . . So there really is no argument, since neither of us can know neither of us can say the other is false. </I><BR/><BR/>Consider these statements:<BR/>(1) There might be life elsewhere in the universe.<BR/>(2) There is no life elsewhere in the universe.<BR/><BR/>Which one is more plausible? If you were in a debate, which one would you want to defend? At least (1) stands a good chance of being true, and could actually be proven. I’m not sure we could ever prove (2). My claim that God <I>might</I> have reasons for allowing evil is the same kind of claim as (1). All I have to do is come up with some possible scenario that justifies whatever evil we are considering. (Alvin Plantinga’s free will defense is just such a scenario.)<BR/><BR/>It is just a fact of logic that <I>possibility</I> claims are easier to defend than <I>necessity</I> claims.<BR/><BR/>I will let this horse die now.<BR/><BR/><I>Until there is credible evidence to support the existence of the supernatural</I><BR/><BR/>What counts as evidence, and why?<BR/><BR/><I>I say the Bible is wrong about God, one indicator is the fact that God is either not as good as he is reported to be or his goodness is undefined. </I><BR/><BR/>If I understand what you are saying, you are claiming that the Bible is probably false because it gives an incoherent (nonsensical) description of God? Is this correct? You can’t say that the proposition “God is good” is false without first accepting that God exists. Similarly, we can’t really say that the proposition “Gandalf is good” is true or false.<BR/><BR/><I>Then do you concede that Brahma, Shiva and Vishnu are possible as well?</I><BR/><BR/>Sure. I just thought you were “Debunking Christianity,” not Hinduism. <BR/><BR/> <BR/><I>I feel your pain brother, but about Christians, but unfortunately that’s the nature of the beast (pun intended for a little light hearted effect). </I><BR/><BR/>You’re right about that. I expect more from enlightened atheists, though.<BR/><BR/><I>But the fact is that until the Christian can show some credible evidence for, at the very least, the presumption for the supernatural, there is no rational basis for Christianity and Christians are not likely to have satisfying explanations for anything. I would even go so far as to say that Christians cannot properly carry out the reasoning process because they have no backing for their propositions. The weight of presumption against god is greater than for him. </I><BR/><BR/>Wow. Those claims are just crazy. You need to answer my question about evidence. <BR/><BR/>No rational basis? Have you read any philosophy at all?<BR/><BR/><I>I bet you always come to the same conclusion, since there is no evidence for god, he can be undefined, a moving goalpost, anything is possible, even to the point of breaking the law of non-contradiction (which seems to be okay with Christians). They are not fallacious, . . .They are not right because the Christian doesn’t want them to be, so they don’t accept them. No reason for not accepting them, because there is no presumption for the supernatural. there is no presumption for the supernatural. </I><BR/><BR/>Lee – Listen, you are constructing a straw man. I am not “other Christians” or “most Christians.” If you are arguing with me, stick to what I’ve claimed. If you want to make an argument that most Christians are dumb, that’s fine, but that doesn’t have anything to do with our conversation. Stay on target, stay on target . . .<BR/> <BR/><B>Howdy again, Shygetz .</B><BR/><BR/>You wrote:<BR/><I>Because I am stating that it is illogical, not merely inconsistent, which is possible due to the nature of the Christian claim.</I><BR/><BR/>We’re saying the same thing, Shygetz. You don’t have to fight me on this. I gain NOTHING by saying that your charge is one of inconsistency.<BR/><BR/> Let’s define inconsistent this way:<BR/>*A set of sentences is inconsistent just in case it contains a contradiction.*<BR/>I think this is a standard way of defining inconsistency. Consider the following set of formulas in propositional logic:<BR/>{p, q, pr, ~r}<BR/><BR/>This set is inconsistent, because it contains both r and ~r, which is a contradiction. Whatever is inconsistent is illogical, in a standard logic.<BR/><BR/><I>So you are arguing that, throughout the history of the universe, not one case of gratuitous evil ever existed or ever will exist.</I><BR/><BR/>That is not what I was arguing, but, yes, I do believe it.<BR/> <BR/><I><BR/>1.) Human morality requires justification for all acts of harm<BR/>2.) God does not justify all of his acts of harm<BR/>3.) Therefore, God does not follow human morality</I><BR/><BR/>Well done! Thank you for being so clear. We can work together on this. <BR/><BR/>OK – You’re argument is pretty good. Let’s spruce up the conclusion to make it clearly valid:<BR/><BR/>1.) Human morality requires justification for all acts of harm<BR/>2.) God does not justify all of his acts of harm<BR/>3.*) Therefore, God does not meet the requirements of human morality.<BR/><BR/>Now, I’m not sure what you mean by (1). Perhaps you mean:<BR/>(1*) Human morality requires <I>verbal</I> justification for all acts of harm.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Is that right? Because there is a difference between (a) there being a justification for my actions, and (b) my giving a justification for my actions. I assume you mean (b), right? If so, then I need to know what you mean by “requires.” If you mean that when someone commits or allows an evil, we WANT them to justify their actions, then I agree. But if you mean that:<BR/>(4) If an action is not verbally justified, then it is immoral.<BR/><BR/>Then (4) is obviously false. Someone who commits/allows a evil is perfectly free to ignore me. (Remember that we are distinguishing between evil and gratuitous evil. An evil will seem gratuitous to me if I don’t see any good reason for it.) Suppose I walk in the house, and tell my son that he must go to bed without any dinner. He says, “Why?” and I am silent. What follows from this? I can tell you what <I>doesn’t</I> follow – it doesn’t follow that I have no good reason for my action. So, I agree with you that we want God to justify his action/inaction. But even if God doesn’t, it doesn’t follow that he has no good reasons. In fact, there may even be good reasons for his silence. Perhaps his silence is just one more evil, for which God has a good reason – a reason to which we aren’t privy.<BR/><BR/>So, I think (1*) is false. If so, your argument is unsound.<BR/><BR/>By the way, I’m fine with just talking about “morality” since I don’t think there are multiple kinds.<BR/><BR/><I>Now, humans have no frame of reference for morality other than human morality. So, unless you can refute (3), </I><BR/><BR/>I’ve done that. I welcome your rebuttal.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14316937277548018841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-15355357442831165702007-04-03T13:11:00.000-04:002007-04-03T13:11:00.000-04:00CHRISMy original point was simple -- God might hav...CHRIS<BR/>My original point was simple -- God might have good reasons for allowing various instances of evil. I haven't heard anything so far that shows this to be false. <BR/><BR/>CARR<BR/>Just as we tell children about Santa Claus to get them to behave better, God mght be telling us lies about Heaven and Hell to get us to behave better.<BR/><BR/>Chris's arguments destroy all rational basis for faith in God.<BR/><BR/>Chris protests that people are developing 'side-issues'.<BR/><BR/>It is more a case that Christianity is supposed to be self-consistent.<BR/><BR/>So if Chris says something which contradicts Christian beliefs, we are allowed to say so.<BR/><BR/>God is supposed to be a moral being , who would never lie and deceive us.<BR/><BR/>Chris shows that this cannot be proved to be true, as Chris is adamant that nobody can prove that God has no good reason not to lie on suitable occasions, for reasons that he will never reveal to us.<BR/><BR/>So Christianity is proved to be inconsistent.Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-41969011119293758542007-04-03T11:09:00.000-04:002007-04-03T11:09:00.000-04:00So, I can't see how to construe this as anything b...<I>So, I can't see how to construe this as anything but an inconsistency charge.</I><BR/><BR/>Because I am stating that it is illogical, not merely inconsistent, which is possible due to the nature of the Christian claim. You cannot logically hold all four premises to be true (3O + gratuitous evil), because you insist that the 3O premises are unconditionally true. Therefore, a single violation of any one of the 3O premises (i.e. one example of gratuitous evil) renders the entire conclusion illogical, as one of the foundational premises would be demonstrably false.<BR/><BR/><I>My original point was simple -- God might have good reasons for allowing various instances of evil. I haven't heard anything so far that shows this to be false.</I><BR/><BR/>So you are arguing that, throughout the history of the universe, not one case of gratuitous evil ever existed or ever will exist. OK, I will explain my simple argument against this again. EVEN IF you believe the absurd notion that every single creature killed by an act of God was killed in exactly that manner because it was the most benificent and least harmful way a 3O being could bring about his good ends, then you still have a problem. Human morality requires justification to be given for all harmful acts. If I kill a man, it is not sufficient for me to say "I killed him, so I must have had a good reason." No, I MUST justify myself to the interested parties. God does not do this in every case. <BR/><BR/>1.) Human morality requires justification for all acts of harm<BR/>2.) God does not justify all of his acts of harm<BR/>3.) Therefore, God does not follow human morality<BR/><BR/>Now, humans have no frame of reference for morality other than human morality. So, unless you can refute (3), then the statement "God is omnibenevolent" is either false (as we know he does not unfailingly follow human morality), or meaningless (as the term "benevolent" holds no meaning for us outside of human experience). Therefore, the idea of a 3O God is either false or misleading.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-62945805190697708382007-04-03T10:39:00.000-04:002007-04-03T10:39:00.000-04:00Hi Chris,Isn’t there a scripture in the Bible that...Hi Chris,<BR/>Isn’t there a scripture in the Bible that warns Christians not to engage in debate over these things?<BR/>If there is would you please post it for me?<BR/><BR/><I>My original point was simple -- God might have good reasons for allowing various instances of evil.</I><BR/>Do you know what those might be? No, because you cannot know the mind of god, and even less chance for the atheist. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn’t. So there really is no argument, since neither of us can know neither of us can say the other is false. <BR/>On the other hand…..<BR/><BR/><I>I haven't heard anything so far that shows this to be false.</I><BR/>Consider the following.<BR/>Until there is credible evidence to support the existence of the supernatural, the likelihood that natural explanations are correct in any given case is stronger. That means that any naturalistic explanation is more likely to be correct. I say the Bible is wrong about God, one indicator is the fact that God is either not as good as he is reported to be or his goodness is undefined. This wasn’t thought through very well by the authors because the bible, as it is, was never the goal. It was pieced together from oral tradition and historical writings, in a word ‘Folklore’. My argument used a rational process. The only point that I can see that a Christian could take issue with it is at the point that it introduces god. I concede that is the weak spot, but it is weak because there are no facts to back it up. No evidence of God to confirm or deny. Theoretically it works for me. Doesn’t work for you? Ok, we agree to disagree. It is NONSENSE. I know that. It was bait, intended to press the same point I always fall back on. <BR/><BR/><I>As long as this is possible, there is no logical conflict between the existence of evil and the Judeo-Christian God.</I><BR/>Then do you concede that Brahma, Shiva and Vishnu are possible as well? Maybe Zuess and the Titans if we go with One Waves quote from Thallus in the ‘resurrection’ thread? I could argue that too, taking schemes from the Christian argument manual and changing the names.<BR/> <BR/><I>But much of what is written is just loosely connected thoughts, ideas, questions, etc., with each post raising an entirely new issue or facet of the debate. The result: more heat than light……I haven't changed my argument, except to admit where it was wrong. Can you (that's an inclusive 'you' -- everyone at DC) do the same?</I><BR/>I feel your pain brother, but about Christians, but unfortunately that’s the nature of the beast (pun intended for a little light hearted effect).<BR/><BR/>But the fact is that until the Christian can show some credible evidence for, at the very least, the presumption for the supernatural, there is no rational basis for Christianity and Christians are not likely to have satisfying explanations for anything. I would even go so far as to say that Christians cannot properly carry out the reasoning process because they have no backing for their propositions. The weight of presumption against god is greater than for him.<BR/><BR/><I>I think the issues raised by each of you are very important and difficult for Christians to answer. I have done my best so far. Your points (almost) always have strong intuitive appeal, but without out an argument, it sounds like a certain Monty Python sketch ("Argument Clinic").</I><BR/>Now hold on there pardner, I take exception to that. I work very hard to get these arguments together, some times I even set them up like targets waiting to be shot at.<BR/><BR/>If they have a strong intuitive appeal, that is part of the definition of Fallacy. Maybe they are fallacies or maybe they are right. Figure out what is wrong in the reasoning. I bet you always come to the same conclusion, since there is no evidence for god, he can be undefined, a moving goalpost, anything is possible, even to the point of breaking the law of non-contradiction (which seems to be okay with Christians). <BR/><BR/>They are not fallacious, they just cannot be right for some reason. What is that reason? I’ll tell you what I think it is. They are not right because the Christian doesn’t want them to be, so they don’t accept them. No reason for not accepting them, because there is no presumption for the supernatural. <BR/><BR/>I raise these issues EXACTLY because they are hard. They are what got me on the road to deconversion. I want to help people think them through.<BR/><BR/>Stay tuned for my next article, I promise I’ll lay my argument out like bottles on a wall for you to shoot at. It will be called something like “a double standard for truth”.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-86377012313923971852007-04-03T00:13:00.000-04:002007-04-03T00:13:00.000-04:00Lee -- I'm not sure the Venn Diagram approach is h...Lee -- I'm not sure the Venn Diagram approach is helpful. I'm not sure what it would mean to say that God's morality is a set of some kind. A set of what? Moral laws or truths maybe? In any case, it doesn't seem to illustrate my argument. My original point was simple -- God might have good reasons for allowing various instances of evil. I haven't heard anything so far that shows this to be false. As long as this is possible, there is no logical conflict between the existence of evil and the Judeo-Christian God. <BR/><BR/>One thing I have found frustrating is that most people here at DC seem to be unwilling to stick to the argument at hand. The only way we can make progress in the debate is to agree on terms -- definitions, premises, conclusion, etc. Once we are disputing the same propositions, we can make genuine progress. But much of what is written is just loosely connected thoughts, ideas, questions, etc., with each post raising an entirely new issue or facet of the debate. The result: more heat than light. People are venting their beefs with God or Christianity, but few seem serious about finding the truth. <BR/><BR/>I have laid out my premises and claims carefully. I have taken a clear stand. I have conceded certain points. I've been as generous as possible in construing others' arguments, even to the point of causing problems for my own view. I haven't changed my argument, except to admit where it was wrong. Can you (that's an inclusive 'you' -- everyone at DC) do the same?<BR/><BR/>I think the issues raised by each of you are very important and difficult for Christians to answer. I have done my best so far. Your points (almost) always have strong intuitive appeal, but without out an argument, it sounds like a certain Monty Python sketch ("Argument Clinic"). If we just want to share feelings, or make unsubstantiated claims to lash out at religion, that's fine. But I would much prefer rational argument.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14316937277548018841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-22438106741358589882007-04-02T22:55:00.000-04:002007-04-02T22:55:00.000-04:00HI Bob,you summed up one of my beliefs quite nicel...HI Bob,<BR/>you summed up one of my beliefs quite nicely, except for the expletive.<BR/><BR/>Steven,<BR/>I agree with you. I stopped trusting god, I think a lot of people do.<BR/><BR/>As Johns 'archeology review' article says, how can anyone look at the holocaust and reasonably argue that there is a moral omni-everything god? Or look at the babies that die for lack of nutrition etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc<BR/><BR/>In my mind, God is how people, a long time ago, rationalized Chance and uncertainty and it stuck.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-36375893829405556692007-04-02T13:12:00.000-04:002007-04-02T13:12:00.000-04:00LEEHi Chris,about the lying spirit, If I were you ...LEE<BR/>Hi Chris,<BR/>about the lying spirit, If I were you I would've said, God doesn't lie, he sends lying spirits.<BR/><BR/>CARR<BR/>That wouldn't help.<BR/><BR/>Chris is trying to show that we cannot hold God to our moral standards, such as not lying.<BR/><BR/>He is also trying to show that God doesn't lie.<BR/><BR/>But if God can't be held to our moral standards, then Chris can no more trust him than we can trust our parents.<BR/><BR/>If , of course, our parents were not held to the same moral standards as we are...<BR/><BR/>If our parents declared that normal moral standards did not apply to them, they could kill us, rape us or (whisper it) lie to us.<BR/><BR/>We would never trust any being that claimed that it was not subject to the same moral rules as us.Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-89601610822668781852007-04-02T10:19:00.000-04:002007-04-02T10:19:00.000-04:00Hi Chris,about the lying spirit, If I were you I w...Hi Chris,<BR/>about the lying spirit, If I were you I would've said, God doesn't lie, he sends lying spirits.<BR/><BR/>then about the sphere. I had it wrong, it should be a big square but thats not really important. it can be a circle or a big square. This isn't math, but it is used in math sometimes, its like a logic diagrem, its called a venn diagram. Its an easy way to get a grip on ideas like this one. anyway...<BR/>heres a link that may explain it better.<BR/>http://regentsprep.org/Regents/math/venn/LVenn.htm<BR/><BR/>Imagine a big circle or square drawn on piece of paper, label that morality, then inside of the circle or square draw two smaller interlinked circles, label those man and god. Then shade in the portion that overlaps and call that 'shared morality'. This is what I envision for your argument, but it may not fit. You'll have to decide.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-75976214414253931882007-04-01T23:41:00.000-04:002007-04-01T23:41:00.000-04:00Hey Lee. Welcome back. The whole 'sphere' thing ...Hey Lee. Welcome back. The whole 'sphere' thing went clear over my head. Mathematics is not my strong suit, if that's the road you're going down. Were you using 'satisfy' and 'model' in the technical sense?<BR/><BR/>Also, how should I use the 'lying spirit' story?Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14316937277548018841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-25658610608643322512007-04-01T23:35:00.000-04:002007-04-01T23:35:00.000-04:00Hi all,Thanks for holding the fort while I was gon...Hi all,<BR/>Thanks for holding the fort while I was gone.<BR/>You guys are good!.<BR/><BR/>Chris, <BR/>yes I have taken the burden of proof.<BR/>One thing I notice is that arguing that a thing is absolute always, always, always brings trouble. If you can find one exception it dashes the argument. Arguing that God is omni-anything is, in my view, the Achilles heel in the Christian argument.<BR/>If they said that god cannot break the law of non-contradiction, that god is the most powerful thing in the universe, most benevolent thing in the universe etc, it would be harder to criticize.<BR/>I think we have met the burden.<BR/>I think we have shown that if there is a god, there is one standard for it and one standard for us, and we can't understand his standard, therefore, it means nothing to us to say that he is good.<BR/>But my argument had an additional parameter which is a 'should'. We should be able to understand it, since we can't it poses a problem for the supreme intellect in the universe. God is not communicating himself effectively (if its there).<BR/>There's a nice juicy 'warrant' for you to go after. But please don't let that distract you from telling me if my diagram model matches your argument, or please describe a better one.<BR/>Thanks in advance.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-52947432781546596292007-04-01T23:12:00.000-04:002007-04-01T23:12:00.000-04:00Yeeha!My internets back.Hi Chris,If I were you I'd...Yeeha!<BR/>My internets back.<BR/>Hi Chris,<BR/>If I were you I'd use the lying spirit story in the old testament. God sent a lying spirit to pharaoh or something like that.<BR/><BR/>I'm going to try to use a diagram, with out drawing it here, hang on!<BR/>If I understand you, you are saying that if morality were a sphere, we and god would exist inside, but overlap in some way, with God able to see all of our area and we not able to see his area? I think that would satisfy a model of your argument. Is that right?<BR/><BR/>It would represent what I have in mind.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-75108788636019284102007-04-01T14:12:00.000-04:002007-04-01T14:12:00.000-04:00I have an entirely different problem with God not ...I have an entirely different problem with God not being bound by something recognizable as morality to human beings.<BR/><BR/>God made human beings in His image. This doesn't mean God has the physical form of a human being. Being made in His image means that there is something god-like in each of us. Up until the early Modern Period and the beginnings of the Scientific Revolution the similarity of human beings to God was in the possession of reason.<BR/><BR/>Being made in the image of God means that God's mind, His intentions, and His plans, are intelligible to human beings. God's mind can be understood at least in part by human beings.<BR/><BR/>Consider the alternative. If human beings are impotent to understand God's Mind at least in part.<BR/><BR/>If we as human beings cannot arrive at the honest conclusion that God's plans, intentions, and actions are for The Best(tm) then the only reason to submit to God's Will(tm) is that God is omnipotent. God's Power is Divorced from God's Intelligence/Rationality/Goodness. Human beings would be unable to see God's Goodness as Goodness. A Believier would obey God not because of Love but because of Fear. God's Omnipotence becomes the prime argument for obedience. Might makes Right. <BR/><BR/>If God's intentions, plans, and actions are unintelligible to humans, then from a human point of view, God is nothing but a bully screaming at humanity, "Do What I Say, or you'll be fuckin' sorry!"Bob Kowalskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03741101011136593138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-55041579546555348592007-04-01T02:26:00.000-04:002007-04-01T02:26:00.000-04:00Chris resorts to insults to cover up the fact that...Chris resorts to insults to cover up the fact that he preaches that nobody can prove that it is not immoral for his god to have lied about everything to mankind. <BR/><BR/>It is *his* argument that nobody can prove that lying is immoral if his god lies, because God is not held to the same moral standards as His creation.<BR/><BR/>So the only way he can now react is to start throwing out insults, because his beliefs have been shown to be self-contradictory.<BR/><BR/>I often find that people get angry when the fallacies of their beliefs are exposed. <BR/><BR/>It is a natural way to react.Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-66231271888447520822007-03-31T18:51:00.000-04:002007-03-31T18:51:00.000-04:00This is getting out of hand. I've tried to be civ...This is getting out of hand. I've tried to be civil and rational. I'm surprised that no one, even the atheists, has come to my defense here. If I said anything as ludicrous as Carr's last post, the retorts would undoubtedly rain down upon me like, well, rain. If he's the only one still in the conversation, I think I'm done. His point was good, even though I had to do all his arguing for him.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14316937277548018841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-40111591063395341062007-03-31T15:26:00.000-04:002007-03-31T15:26:00.000-04:00I think Chris is gradually conceding that his defe...I think Chris is gradually conceding that his defense to the charge of double moral-standards means that he now cannot say whether God has ever told the truth to people.<BR/><BR/>His 'defense' has just destroyed Christianity because now he has no more reason to beleive in Heaven than he claims atheists have any reason to believe it is wrong for God to allow people to rape little children.Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-18122181523499309582007-03-31T14:58:00.000-04:002007-03-31T14:58:00.000-04:00OK, I'll take the bait, Mr. Carr. As I said, it i...OK, I'll take the bait, Mr. Carr. <BR/><BR/>As I said, it is a good question. I took you to be arguing something like this:<BR/>(1) God can have morally sufficient reasons (MSR) to perform apparently harmful acts.<BR/>(2) Lying is an apparently harmful act.<BR/>(3) So God can have MSR for lying. <BR/><BR/>Is this close to what you were getting at? If it is, then here's how I would proceed: I need to show that either (1) or (2) is false, or that the reasoning is invalid. As far as I can tell, the logic is good. So I guess I would focus on (2) and say that lying is not in the class of "apparently harmful acts." Why? Because if we define a lie as necessarily malicious, then it is necessarily malicious, and (3) would come out false, by definition. If we define a lie in the other way, then yes, it follows that God could have a MSR for lying. I'm not sure how to escape this conclusion. However, this doesn't give you what you want, because defining a lie in this way is relatively innocuous. God's asserting something false to deceive us, but with parental love and concern, doesn't sound bad at all. Does it? You have to grant that it is for our best interests. So, you've won a victory of sorts -- I've had to change my position.<BR/><BR/>So, I don't have to show that "there can never be a morally sufficient reason for [...]God to lie to us about the existence of Heaven." <BR/><BR/>By the way, I haven't "simply asserted" anything, so far as I know. I believe I have offered good arguments for whatever claims I have made. Please be specific about such charges. <BR/><BR/>So what about my claim that God cannot lie (for any reason)? This would certainly limit the range of good jokes God could tell. Have you heard the one about . . . okay, staying on target. Is this a bare assertion? Let me see if I can offer some argument.<BR/><BR/>Let's suppose that knowledge is the norm of assertion. In other words, to assert something is to imply that you know it. This is fairly standard. I.e., it would be odd to say, "Topeka is the capital of Kansas! But I don't know that." So, if this is right, and we define omniscience:<BR/>A being is omniscient just in case she knows all true propositions and believes no false ones.<BR/>So, if this is right, it follows that God should never assert what is false, since he has no false beliefs. Now if lying is assering something false, then it follows that God should not lie. Sadly, this doesn't get us to "necessarily, God cannot lie." So, instead of deleting the last several paragraphs of daunting philosophical machinations, I'll leave it here to test the mettle of any would-be assailant. : )<BR/><BR/>So, without an argument for God's necessary truthfulness, I guess I'm stuck with the position that God can have MSR to lie. Now, I could make a biblical argument, but I don't think you'd buy that. Especially since the charge really is that the biblical claim is defective somehow.<BR/><BR/>As far as your rapist scenario -- it's just silly. God is not a heavenly Google.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14316937277548018841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-19636408615599708922007-03-31T13:46:00.000-04:002007-03-31T13:46:00.000-04:00CHRIS writes'Some killing is done for the sake of ...CHRIS writes<BR/>'Some killing is done for the sake of justice (killing someone who attempts to rape and murder my 7-yr.-old daughter with lethal force).'<BR/><BR/>CARR<BR/>But Chris says God can't lie. It is just not in his nature to do so.<BR/><BR/>Presumably if a would be rapist asked God to tell him where my 7 year old daughter was, God would have to kill him, because He just couldn't lie , even if that saved my daughter from being raped.Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-80779767529784672302007-03-31T13:33:00.000-04:002007-03-31T13:33:00.000-04:00Chris is quite right.His religion requires him to ...Chris is quite right.<BR/><BR/>His religion requires him to believe that God can kill us all without batting an eyelid, but we have to accept God's promises of pie-in-the-sky-when-we-die.<BR/><BR/>Therefore he makes a special case of one kind of morality, because otherwise his beliefs would fall to pieces in his hands.<BR/><BR/>The rest of us though, can see that this is just special pleading on his part.<BR/><BR/>And Chris simply asserts that atheists must show that God cannot have any morally sufficient reason for killing people, while he himself offers no proof that God can never have a morally sufficient reason for deceiving us about Heaven and Hell (despite his own Bible claiming God puts a lying spirit into people's mouths!)<BR/><BR/>Double-standards? I think so.<BR/><BR/>Until Chris can prove that there can never be a morally sufficient reason for his God to lie to us about the existence of Heaven, I will use Chris's own reasoning that shows that God can be a liar.Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-42767754118404242022007-03-31T13:08:00.000-04:002007-03-31T13:08:00.000-04:00As for the ill-mannered Mr. Carr --Your first comm...As for the ill-mannered Mr. Carr --<BR/><BR/>Your first comment appeared while I was writing mine, thus I didn't even see it until mine was published. Second, I wrote a response last night, but lost it in the process for some reason. So, I will give it another shot. But you would be better served in the future to restrain your tongue, or fingers, as it were.<BR/><BR/>The question is a good one, I think. Could God have a morally sufficient reason to lie? First, let's define lie: A person lies just in case she asserts what she knows to be false with malicious intent. This won't help us, because, presumably, you could never have a morally sufficient reason to act maliciously! So, maybe we'll broaden our definition:<BR/>A person lies just in case she asserts what she knows to be false, with the intent to deceive.<BR/><BR/>Could God have a good reason to do this? Suppose we say 'yes.' Well, then the lie would be a good thing, at the end of the day. My parents lied to me about many things, and for good reason (I was too young, etc.). Should I therefore distrust them? No, because they did it out of love and concern. Also, a lie in this sense is essential for humor, which is a good thing.<BR/><BR/>Suppose we say 'no.' Perhaps there is some essential property of God's, like truthfulness, that simply precludes any possibility of lying. I.e., God is necessarily incapable of lying. But the act of killing a human being does not seem to conflict with any essential property of God. Could it conflict with love? Some killing is done in love (euthanasia). Justice? Some killing is done for the sake of justice (killing someone who attempts to rape and murder my 7-yr.-old daughter with lethal force). I suppose an argument would have to be made for the claim that killing is essentially incompatible with God's nature. <BR/><BR/>So, I suppose I'm inclined to take the latter position. It does seem that lying is a special case. God simply can't do it, anymore than he could cease to exist or make square circles.<BR/><BR/>Judging by your tone, I presume that this won't satisfy you. That's the best I can do for now.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14316937277548018841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-25545009994080709032007-03-31T03:23:00.000-04:002007-03-31T03:23:00.000-04:00Chris still ducks the question of how he can trust...Chris still ducks the question of how he can trust a being that is not bound by the commandment to avoid lies....<BR/><BR/>Or the question of how he knows that God is morally right to kill us, but that God would never lie to us.Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-49358950194403437892007-03-30T19:22:00.000-04:002007-03-30T19:22:00.000-04:00John -- It is perfectly fair for me to argue as I ...<B>John</B> -- It is perfectly fair for me to argue as I have. We have to have some standard of protocol here, and it is widely accepted in both formal debate and law that the party who makes an affirmative claim must establish it, while the negative party is only required to show that the affirmative party has failed to do so. This can be done merely by casting doubt on the affirmative claim.<BR/><BR/>Now, I'm not splitting hairs here. Anyone who has done debate can back me up. If you want to suggest some other standard, I'm open to it, but this is the most widely accepted.<BR/><BR/>What follows from this is that you, Lee and others have taken, whether intentionally or not, the affirmative side. You have asserted that "God has a double standard of morality" or something like that. I am merely trying to show that your case fails. This is, admittedly, the easier task.<BR/><BR/>Now, if I had posted on my blog that "God is a perfect moral being" or that "God is possibly justified in allowing evil," then the roles would be reversed, and you could simply demand that I provide a possible justification.<BR/><BR/><B>Shygetz</B> -- I didn't insist on 'omni' -- that was your term. However, I accept it. <BR/><BR/>OK -- so here's how the inconsistency charge looks:<BR/>(O1) God is omniscient<BR/>(O2) God is omnibenevolent<BR/>(O3) God is omnipotent<BR/>(E1) Gratuitous evil exists<BR/><BR/>So, you're claming that I cannot affirm all four of these consistently. That's the same as saying that "they cannot all be true." I have to jettison one or more. Is this right? So, I can't see how to construe this as anything but an inconsistency charge. But don't jump out of your chair! Charging the Christian with inconsistency is a perfectly acceptable way to "debunk Christianity."<BR/><BR/>As for your claim that God causes evil (I assume you mean gratuitous?), I'm afraid you're going to have to back that one up with an argument.<BR/><BR/><I>. . .it is an axiom of human morality that a person who causes harm to another person must justify his actions.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm not familiar with this axiom. Can you explain why you think this is an axiom? It doesn't seem to me that it is. What do you mean by "justify his actions?" Verbally? <BR/><BR/><I>Either God is not omnibenevolent, or else "good" has no real meaning when discussing God, in which case "omnibenevolence" has no useful meaning.</I><BR/><BR/>So, by this disjunction, if I claim that God is omnibenevolent, then this should entail that 'good' and 'omnibenevolent' have no useful meaning. How does that follow? Honestly, though, the term 'omnibenevolence'(OB for short) is somewhat new to me. I suppose we mean by it, "perfectly good in all respects" or something. So, I affirm that God is OB, and it still seems to have meaning. <BR/><BR/>Aside from logic, I know what you're trying to say. and I actually am troubled by this problem a bit myself. However, it is just patently false that the problem of evil "crushes" the idea of a 3O god. No contemporary philosopher maintains the logical problem of evil. There are other versions though. And it could be claimed that the PoE "crushes" theism in some existential way. That is at least close to being true.<BR/><BR/><B>Lee</B> -- No offense taken. I was implying that perhaps your charge of "double standard" becomes nonsensical, based on what you said about spiderman. By the way, I don't think Spiderman has a double standard. <BR/><BR/>Since you didn't want to battle on the field I proposed, I'll meet you where you are. I can see your honest concerns, and I think they are valid. There is no "answer" for the PoE. I agree that we should be able to understand God. But understanding is a graded concept. I understand logic, but not like Saul Kripke did. I understand football, but not the way Tony Dungy does. I understand my wife, in some sense, but whoa! she is still a mystery. Do you know what I mean? If you are married, you know what I mean. Or just think of someone you know REALLY well. Can you ever know a person in some exhaustive, deterministic, atomistic way? As if you could predict all their actions or know their thoughts? No. Never. I'm not punting to mystery here. You know what I'm talking about. If you deny this, then I don't know what to say to you. But if you grant this, then claiming that God is, in some sense, beyond our complete understanding, is really not crazy.<BR/><BR/>There's more that could be said. My heart resonates with yours, though. I lost my father to cancer a few years ago, and it wasn't easy. I have experienced hard things that make me mad at God. For some reason, I still trust him.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14316937277548018841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-45926127067226763302007-03-30T11:08:00.000-04:002007-03-30T11:08:00.000-04:00Hi Chris,I hope its not as inconsistent as it soun...Hi Chris,<BR/>I hope its not as inconsistent as it sounds. <BR/>here it is in a nutshell.<BR/>I'm not going to speak for anyone else so this is all about me.<BR/>morality means one thing to me. I don't see gods behavior as moral. I don't see his behavior in the bible as moral. To me that means I don't know what it means for god to be good. That means I think there is a double standard, and it sounds like to me that christians do to.<BR/>so if god exists, then he sets the standard for good, which seems to be chaotic, and I try to do no harm.<BR/>But extrapolate that. If christians will say that there is the 'god good' which is a mystery, and there is the me good that I can conceive of, then they can justify anything from slavery to apartheid, to trying to hasten the end times by rebuilding the temple or tearing down babylon because it is what god wants and god is good and his goodness is a mystery. <BR/>in short it is a blank check to justify anything that suits the christian agenda. <BR/>If there is no reason to morals, then animal cruelty can be tolerated, and all sorts of other things that I'm sure you can imagine if you think it through.<BR/>My point is this. that if there is a god, he should be someone we can understand and not have to 'punt to mystery'. and since he would have created the laws of the universe, and logic, then it follows that they should be useful to worship him with. To me, there is no logic, It causes me stress because it doesn't make sense and I cannot love something that I don't understand. it doesn't make sense. I hope that was not blathering but I have to get my internet when I can cause mine is still down.<BR/><BR/>and the spiderman thing. I don't think god exists, and I don't think spiderman exists therefore I think arguing theology and what god would do is like the arguing i used to do about comic book characters and star wars characters when I was a kid.<BR/>I'm sorry if I offend anyone, i know that alot of people have a lot of time tied up in theology, but to me, if god exists and he's perfect, then there should be no need for theology, it should be plain as the clear blue summer sky. I thought that way when I was a christian, too. See what happened?<BR/><BR/>take care, not sure I'll be back till after the weekend.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.com