Why does my God allow children to die? Is he evil?

[1robin]

This is all still games bro.

This is William James Craig type of arguing where you create examples only relevant in your world view and theology to prove themselves.

For people to see torture and murder as universally wrong doesn't require any absolute objective source for morality. Only the human recognition that pain and suffering are not great things and we should avoid causing them unless we deem necessary.

This mumbo jumbo is pretending that there is a right, objective answer to "what is the best thing to watch on TV at 8pm" Stuff that sucks, in universal opinion...will get the least views. Stuff that is good will get the most views. It doesn't mean there is an objective right or wrong choice.

Our morality is general agreement that this or that action sucks... Based off very human factors.

People do not see torture as universally wrong so if your system is all there is it has produced proof it does not work. I have limited time, and try to spend it in meaningful discussions. It is hard to justify talking to someone who writes off inconvenient claims with "exaggerations" (which is incoherent to begin with, and "games". I almost never yell fallacy and dismiss anything. I say what fallacy it is and explain why it is fallacious.




1. You claim that without God (and you simply assume this to be the case) that no moral absolutes exist. I can agree therefor that topic needs no discussion.

2. I claim that if God exists objective moral truths exist. I also claim that if actual moral truths exist then God must exist. Since you can not prove nor even know if God exists the only debate that can occur is if you disagree that if God did exist then moral truths would not.

3. Or you can tell me what it is you disagree with and why in a manner that produces intellectual discourse. Yelling exaggeration, it's all games, or linking with a type of argument given by someone else is not an argument it is as effort to avoid one and still retain a false initiative.

 

[Sees]

I'm saying there is no real relevant argument here in the first place. There is no reason to believe even if a monotheist god exists that this being or force cares about human ethics or moral codes and that the being or force has its own which then dictate ours. These are all specific theological constructs that are not relevant to the world as a whole unless people specifically want to argue personal thoughts on theology.

We can argue morality and ethos man to man but the opinion of a supernatural mind isn't part of it.

People do not see torture as universally wrong so if your system is all there is it has produced proof it does not work. I have limited time, and try to spend it in meaningful discussions. It is hard to justify talking to someone who writes off inconvenient claims with "exaggerations" (which is incoherent to begin with, and "games". I almost never yell fallacy and dismiss anything. I say what fallacy it is and explain why it is fallacious.




1. You claim that without God (and you simply assume this to be the case) that no moral absolutes exist. I can agree therefor that topic needs no discussion.

2. I claim that if God exists objective moral truths exist. I also claim that if actual moral truths exist then God must exist. Since you can not prove nor even know if God exists the only debate that can occur is if you disagree that if God did exist then moral truths would not.

3. Or you can tell me what it is you disagree with and why in a manner that produces intellectual discourse. Yelling exaggeration, it's all games, or linking with a type of argument given by someone else is not an argument it is as effort to avoid one and still retain a false initiative.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I did not mention anyone winning anything. I mentioned my claims being accepted in circles composed of men who best know.

I know better than all your heroes. Bring them here. I will show you.

They are simply inadequate thinkers -- at least if they agree with your position, as you seem to claim.

 

[1robin]

I'm saying there is no real relevant argument here in the first place. There is no reason to believe even if a monotheist god exists that this being or force cares about human ethics or moral codes and that the being or force has its own which then dictate ours. These are all specific theological constructs that are not relevant to the world as a whole unless people specifically want to argue personal thoughts on theology.

It is a very relevant and meaningful deductive argument. In fact I do not know how anything can be more meaningful.

1. God may very well exist and there is no good reason to think he does not but the argument is just as valid if he only possibly exists. It changes everything about a fundamental human problem. 2 billon people currently claim to have experienced God and 4-5 billion believe he exists.

2. If God does exist murder is actually universally wrong. That changes everything. I can call Hitler evil because he actually is. I can justify killing him and his followers. I can make decisions based on an actual equality of man. I can grant human life sanctity, I can grant humanity dignity, I actually have rights, accountability is absolute and eternal, and taking a life created by a God is far more significant that taking ceasing the function of a biological anomaly. Humans do have a privileged place in the order of things and moral decision reflecting that are true and not speciesm. A society that can found all of those concepts is potentially far more capable of justice and civility.

3. If the assumption he does not exist is taken, and it would be a far more speculative assumption than mine. You can't call Hitler evil. You cannot within that system justify using lethal force to stop him and his followers. You have no basis for claiming all men are equal, You can't grant human life any special sanctity, man has no special claim to dignity, there is no actual basis for claiming rights to anything, there is no ultimate accountability, and there is not much to prohibit wiping out a whole group of arbitrary biological anomalies beyond fear of being caught. Humans are simply mightier biological anomalies that have chosen speciesm to justify their lording over all other life out of selfishness and speciesm. A society that has no actual foundation for morality will produce rank injustice, misery, and death and the history of abortion and atheistic utopias proves this without question.

Now what can possible be more significant, meaningful, and worthy of serious debate than that?

(quote)We can argue morality and ethos man to man but the opinion of a supernatural mind isn't part of it.[/QUOTE]There is nothing that would be more of a part of anything than God and morality if God exists. What is truly meaningless is a bunch of selfish, ignorant, and very fallible men sitting around inventing definitions for evil, good, and justice out of thin air. A race that has enough weapons pointed at each other to wipe out all life known, has the moral insanity to almost have done so twice, kills it's children in the womb by the hundreds of millions, and has had 300 years of peace in the last 5000 is about the worst source possible for moral truth.

 

[1robin]

I know better than all your heroes. Bring them here. I will show you.

They are simply inadequate thinkers -- at least if they agree with your position, as you seem to claim.

This kind of stuff is the exact reason I have limited any debate with you.

He who knows does not say, he who says does not know.
He who claims to know more than every one else is a blathering lunatic.

 

[adi2d]

He who knows does not say, he who says does not know.
He who claims to know more than every one else is a blathering lunatic.

Pot,meet kettle. Kettle meet pot

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

He who claims to know more than every one else is a blathering lunatic.

Don't be so hard on yourself. Just try to imagine that other people are as capable as you are of deciding which authorites to embrace and which to discard.

You'll see that ultimately, we all consider ourselves to be the final judges of all truth.

Anyway, I don't think you a lunatic. Just not quite ready for hard debate.

 

[SkepticThinker]

People do not see torture as universally wrong so if your system is all there is it has produced proof it does not work. I have limited time, and try to spend it in meaningful discussions. It is hard to justify talking to someone who writes off inconvenient claims with "exaggerations" (which is incoherent to begin with, and "games". I almost never yell fallacy and dismiss anything. I say what fallacy it is and explain why it is fallacious.

To the extent that we have Geneva Conventions and UN conventions against torture, I'd have to say that yes, people do see torture as universally wrong.

 

[1robin]

To the extent that we have Geneva Conventions and UN conventions against torture, I'd have to say that yes, people do see torture as universally wrong.

The Geneva convention has existed for less than 1/70th of just the human history the Bible covers. It has existed for less than 1/1000th of the time humans have. Are you sure you wish to use something that has not been true 69 out of every 70 years as proof of universal morality? This treaty will be even harder to use that statistics. The Geneva convention proper only concerns war crimes. Many other protocols were added stem by step afterwards and not every one signed off on them. At one time no Islamic nation would sign off on the one concerning extradition.

A much more obvious peace of evidence would be that in the last 5000 years we have had 300 years of peace. Something true 94% of the time is certainly more representative of a universal than something that at best has existed for .015% of the time humans have.


I am not much of an expert on the Geneva convention so I half hope you continue on that line so I can justify learning more about it, but I would not recommend it.

If the Geneva conventions prohibitions concerning torture were universal why did it take 100,000 years for it to be taken as such? Did the Nazis, Aztecs, American slavery, and the Russian gulags not exist as torture factories on an industrial scale?


A universal is something true of almost everyone almost all the time.

 

[1robin]

Pot,meet kettle. Kettle meet pot

What was the purpose of this? What did you think that would produce that merited it's inclusion?

 

[adi2d]

What was the purpose of this? What did you think that would produce that merited it's inclusion?

I thought it was an appropriate response to your comment

If you don't know the meaning you can easily look it up. Google is your friend

 

[1robin]

I thought it was an appropriate response to your comment

If you don't know the meaning you can easily look it up. Google is your friend

I know the meaning and just for the fun of it let's say it is accurate. How is it appropriate? What good did you actually think it would result in? I always have some slight hope someone will be convinced by my reasoning. Did you think what you said was convincing? To what end was it directed? You are paying the price for your being sarcastic and for my being bored, currently.

 

[adi2d]

I know the meaning and just for the fun of it let's say it is accurate. How is it appropriate? What good did you actually think it would result in? I always have some slight hope someone will be convinced by my reasoning. Did you think what you said was convincing? To what end was it directed? You are paying the price for your being sarcastic and for my being bored, currently.

Just one more example... You telling me I am" paying the price"

I can also have some small hope that you might see that being an arrogant know it all isn't the best wat to get your point across to someone.

 

[1robin]

Just one more example... You telling me I am" paying the price"

I can also have some small hope that you might see that being an arrogant know it all isn't the best wat to get your point across to someone.

That was humor. You were arbitrarily sarcastic and I am bored so you are suffering for both reasons.

Exactly what is it that make you think I have a high opinion of what I know? It almost al originated with someone else.

However I am more interested in what you thought saying I am arrogant and nothing else was going to produce that justified doing so. Your continuous refusal to even invent a justifiable motivation is confirmation none exists.

I have no problem with sarcasm as humor or even as part of a larger and more meaningful post. When it is all there is no honorable justification exists.

One last chance. What was the reason?

 

[adi2d]

That was humor. You were arbitrarily sarcastic and I am bored so you are suffering for both reasons.

Exactly what is it that make you think I have a high opinion of what I know? It almost al originated with someone else.

However I am more interested in what you thought saying I am arrogant and nothing else was going to produce that justified doing so. Your continuous refusal to even invent a justifiable motivation is confirmation none exists.

I have no problem with sarcasm as humor or even as part of a larger and more meaningful post. When it is all there is no honorable justification exists.

One last chance. What was the reason?

One last chance? Brother you are funny.

I have no need to justify anything I do to you. Another example of your arrogance.

And no I am not suffering. Wrong again robin

 

[1robin]

One last chance? Brother you are funny.

I have no need to justify anything I do to you. Another example of your arrogance.

And no I am not suffering. Wrong again robin

That pretty much went as expected. I give up trying to get you to justify what you say in anyway what ever. This is not even solving my boredom (if you must be exclusively sarcastic, at least be entertaining). Have a good one.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

What was the purpose of this? What did you think that would produce that merited it's inclusion?

Are you serious? You don't understand the pot-kettle thing?

He was telling you that your accusation against me would more rightly fit your own behavior.

He was trying to get you to look within.

That's pretty simple, isn't it?

 

[adi2d]

Are you serious? You don't understand the pot-kettle thing?

He was telling you that your accusation against me would more rightly fit your own behavior.

He was trying to get you to look within.

That's pretty simple, isn't it?

Thank you. I thought it was a simple concept

 

[Sees]

Just want to point out that there are some very intelligent arguments in the first 600 or so posts, in case anybody has not read this whole thread. It's worth taking a look.

Some folks did a better job devouring Calvinism than I can ever recall seeing elsewhere.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Thank you. I thought it was a simple concept

I've noticed that often when 1robin asks people what they are talking about, the people assume that 1robin understands what they've said but is objecting to it.

But I'm pretty sure there are times when 1robin really and truly just can't understand what the other guy is saying.

I've had to explain what a 'straight line' is to him and also the little story of the blind men feeling up the elephant, and such as that.