How does one respond to the fairy, leprechaun unicorn, etc. comparisons?

[TruthSeeker60]

Part 2/6

TruthSeeker60;7196997:

BTW, it seems like your largely appealing to authority, and accepting things because they come from authority. Hence, the fact that most people on youtube aren’t considered experts may lead you to excuse the content within their videos. It’s best to watch their videos, look the Bible verses up yourself, and use your reasoning to come to a conclusion.

Of course. I did watch the specific video you sent and that is why I realized you were getting second rate information. A good example from the video you presented is ‘‘salvation by faith alone’’ vs ‘‘salvation by faith and works’’. What the video fails to realize is
. . .]
So it appears that you are confused between multiple interpretations vs. contradictions.

I didn’t claim that everything in that video was a contradiction, however, if none of them are really are contradictions, there’s a lot of explaining to do.

I know the difference between multiple interpretations and contradictions. If Acts 9:7 says that the men traveling with Saul heard the voice, while later saying, in chapter 22 verse 9, that they did not hear the voice, that’s a contradiction. The fact that one may argue that that’s not theologically important is irrelevant, and doesn’t take away from the fact that it’s a contradiction.

Regarding this issue of morality, how do you define morality and where do you get your absolute morality from? If you get your absolute morality from Yahweh, then you condone dashing babies against rocks as a potential source of joy (Psalm 137:9), forcing raped women to marry the rapist (Deuteronomy 22:28-29), and child sacrifice (Jephthah sacrifices his daughter to Yahweh in Judges 11:29-40 due to a vow he made to Yahweh, and is latter called a man of great faith in Hebrews 11:32-33, which is in the NT btw).

Morality can be defined as “The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.” (answers.com/topic/morality ) Lets compare it to civil laws, which often regulate behavior (like moral principles). Why can’t a good politician decide to restrict a certain behavior (such as murder) if he reasonably believes that would ultimately benefit the people of his country? Similarly, why can’t humans come up with rules regarding what is considered right or wrong (morality) based off of what is good for everyone?

BTW, I want to add that arguments from morality tend to be very circular. In a sense, many of them claims that objective morality proves there is a god. But one may wonder, assuming there is objective morality, why is there objective morality? Is it because a god said so? If that’s the case, that’s circular. It is possible, btw, to hold moral principles consistent with universalism without believing in a god.

Since you tell me that if God kills 42 children, God is not omnibenevolent, I would like to see how you logically went from ''God killed 42 kids" to ‘‘God is not omnibenevolent’’

I can’t believe I’m being asked to explained why killing 42 children isn’t the epitome of benevolence. I think you’re trying to get at “where do you get morality from if you don’t believe in god.” If one needs to have a god to tell them that killing people is wrong, then they have no sense of morality at all.

I understand “benevolent” as meaning “Characterized by kindness and concern for others” (answers.com/topic/benevolent ).

A being who is omni-benevolent would be kind and concerned for others to the greatest degree. I’m assuming you’d agree with me that ending someone’s life is the antithesis of kindness. This is so because it destroys what’s most valuable to a person.

under moral relativism, you can’t really condemn any religious atrocity or things like the Nazi regime. Nazi Germany simply decided that the extermination of Jews was what worked well for that society. Is that what you really believe?

If a central theme of one’s moral philosophy is benevolence toward others, then the Holocaust carried out by Nazi Germany can be condemned. Please avoid ridiculous statements like this in the future.

TruthSeeker60;7196997:

I think that the principle “don’t do unto others as you wouldn’t have them do unto you” has proven to be a very solid moral principle. In general, my morality is largely base off concern for others, and doing what’s best for society. I don’t see any reason to have to appeal to authority to know how to behave.

Well this works well as long as people objectively agree on how to treat one self. Some people derive pleasure in hurting themselves. Is that ok? What about issues like pedophilia? How do you logically argue against that view using the rule of reciprocity?

Like I said, “my morality is largely base off concern for others”. “Don’t do unto others as you wouldn’t have them do unto you”, and doing what’s best for society (and its members) is part of that. Regarding morality, I didn’t spell out (or attempt to spell out) my entire moral philosophy. Generally, for moral issues, I’m concerned for the welfare of others, reducing suffering, and helping others live happy, fulfilling lives. Obviously, allowing others to hurt themselves, or allowing a child to be molested, go against these.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

Part 3/6

That was rather interesting bunch of observations but the problem is that how do you consider ''The morality people have today is much better than morality that is presented in the Bible". Under what grounds? If morality is simply what works for a society, then you can’t do ‘‘better’’. That would have worked well for that society.

Actually, allowing people to be murdered, forcing women to marry rapists, and killing someone for gathering sticks on the wrong day of the week would be detrimental for society. More importantly, it would hurt a lot of people.

Secondly, I once again ask you to present how Yahweh, the creator of life, can not take away life at his own will.

Killing, then torturing forever, beings which one has created, is immoral because it causes great suffering unnecessarily. In other words, it’s cruel.

Again, you are making moral judgements with respective to a objective morality. But you were arguing for moral relativism before. Under moral relativism, there is really no such thing as ‘‘BETTER’’. So I am very confused.

And as I said before, you make a lot of charges against Yahweh, but you are still not saying how it logically comes about that the giver of life can’t take away life.

People today don’t condone cruelty, like Yahweh did.

The problem here is you are committing a fallacy through use of circular logic. You have already pre-suppossed that Sai Baba is false due to ‘‘lack of extraordinary evidence’’. Then you present it as proof of ‘‘extraordinary evidence requires extraordinary evidence’’. But you already assumed it was true to discredit Sai Baba. So it’s circular. Do you see the logical problem in your argument?

If you apply the reasoning that you can be justified in believing extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence, you’d could believe in any one of thousands of gods. Also, one may have believed that the earth was flat and at the center of the universe before those ideas were shown not to be true.

I don’t think I said the claims of Sathya Sai Baba were false. I did say that if one believed extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence, one would have to accept Sai Baba’s claims (unless there’s evidence to the contrary). I said that would be absurd. I was assuming most people would consider that absurd because most people wouldn’t believe the claims of Sathya Sai Baba, yet are unaware of evidence against them. I would also consider it absurd for a Christian in part because the claims of Sathya Sai Baba and Jesus (for which much the same reasoning is used to justify belief in hid divinity) can’t both be true. They’re incompatible. Also, the claims of miracles by someone such as Sathya Sai Baba may later be able to be discredited (and I believe they now have).

The above of ‘‘lack of evidence = evidence of absence’’ is usually a lay man’s scapegoat. No philosopher or mathematician will agree with you that the logic is sound. This goes by the different name ‘‘Proving a negative’’ as well.

It’s evidence based off of reason, not proof. That’s a huge difference.

Philosophers and mathematicians would disagree with me if I said “lack of evidence equals proof of absence.” However, that’s not what I indicated. Reason is out of the realm of a mathematician. Philosophers and scientists will tell you that if there is no evidence in favor of something, one wouldn’t be justified in believing it. They would further affirm that the default view is that the claim is false, until adequately demonstrated otherwise. Otherwise, why do you (I assume) believe that the flying spaghetti monster, tooth fairy, or boogie monster doesn’t exist.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

Part 4/6

What you should know, or rather should have learn’t is that it’s possible to prove a negative and that absence of evidence is not same as absence of evidence. That is why if you believe that there is no evidence for a God, and you have no good argument to the contrary, then you must be an agnostic.

There’s a huge difference between proving a negative and accepting lack of evidence as justification for believing that some claim isn’t true. One doesn’t need to prove something one way or another to justifiably believe (as opposed to claim to know) that something is so or not so.

I’m agnostic regarding god, but in the same sense that you are agnostic regarding the flying spaghetti monster, tooth fairy, and the invisible flying dragon in my garage. I assume you don’t have evidence that they don’t exist (other than lack of evidence they do exist), yet you probably believe they don’t exist. Sure, there is theoretically “room” for their existence, yet there is not reasonable room for believing they exist.

Just like there isn’t reasonable room for believing in flying spaghetti monster, tooth fairy, and the invisible flying dragon in my garage, there isn’t reasonable room for believing in god IMHO. Thus, I think the likelihood of god existing is very small, and thus I believe god doesn’t exist.

About Santa, very popular argument among lay people but not philosophers. Existence of Santa can be verified if there are constraints. For an example that Santa lives in the North Pole. you go there, you visit it, find out he is not there. Simple as that. It’s definitely harder, but not impossible.

What about beings that can’t be restricted to geographical restraints, like the flying spaghetti monster, tooth fairy, or any of the thousands of gods you don’t believe in? What about Russell’s famous teapot?

Also, one could argue that failure to find Santa when searching the North Pole would be just as much evidence of the lack of Santa’s existence as the failure of finding the Arc of the Covenant in the region of the world it is expected to be is evidence of the lack of the Arc’s existence. What is missed in one search could be found in another search.

Ok, since you claim you took theology, these questions baffle me. They are ancient problems and have been answered long time back. You can ask Dr. Hahn and I am sure he will assist you with finding answers to these problems. If you are interested I can refer you to a text.

They’ve been answered a long way back, and I’ve become well aware of them in the last several years, hearing to them many, many times. However, none of those answers are sufficiently good. Just because answers have been set forth for or against something doesn’t meant they are valid. BTW, I’ve read a few books by Kreeft, although not the one you mentioned.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

Part 5/6

TruthSeeker60;7197000:

I think I’ve already shown that Yahweh has horrible morals compared to the average person today.

Actually you haven’t. You just mentioned it. But you didn’t show the logical steps from lets say "God killed 42 children’’ to ‘‘God is immoral’’. Keep in mind that you also have to deal with the premise that ‘‘God is the sole giver of life’’. As far as I know, no one in history has managed to come up with logical steps to show God is immoral this way and I am looking forward to this possible new argument you might have

I submit that the references to the Bible I mentioned demonstrate that Yahweh is cruel (meaning he can be either indifferent to suffering, or even take pleasure in causing it). I submit that this cruelty is irreconcilable with the less cruel standard of conduct (morality) that most people adopt today. I consider less cruelty to be a better standard of conduct because if a more cruel standard were adopted, people would suffer more. I’m considering here, that the chief purposes of morality are to relieve suffering and to help others live happy, fulfilling live.

I’m curious, what do you think morality is? What do you think is it’s purpose? I ask this because it seems you are defining morality by whatever god says is ok (god can do whatever he wants, it’s moral to own slaves, murder, or sacrifice your daughter if god is ok with it, etc.). With this understanding of morality, anything can be justified, and it is irrefutable, so long as you think god exists. This is a problem with understanding the idea of morality.

It would be unfair for you to ask me about my moral philosophy without yourself explaining what you mean by morality, and what it’s purpose it.

TruthSeeker60;7197000:

Regardless of whether someone is an expert or not, they should neither be tacitly followed, nor automatically excused. If someone refers to the Bible, if your uncertain about their understanding of the Bible, look up the verses yourself and do research.

I am not sure what you mean. You want me to look up the bible as a cure for your misunderstanding on it? Shouldn’t it be the other way around??? Actually, I think if you have a misunderstanding, the best place to go to is someone with authority. This is not just with the Bible btw. This is with any field.

I mean that if there is a portion of the Bible that you and another person hold contradictory interpretations of, go look a the passage, including the context and possibility of an inaccurate translation. It’s good to consult views of people who have studied the Bible intensely, so long as you critically look at what they are saying (as opposed to assuming their correct because they’re considered experts) and are careful to not just look at one sides experts (also understand what those who disagree with them say).

Actually, I am all for authority. In any field you go to, it’s all about authority. You submit a paper to any scientific conference, it’s all about authority. If you are anti-authority, it’s not just religion that you will have problems with in your life.

Actually, good science entails drawing a conclusion about a testable hypothesis from statistically significant data that is collected while testing the hypothesis. Good science also reduces subjectivity as much as possible. One may need to have solid credentials in order for others to take one’s scientific work seriously enough to spend time reviewing it for methodological problems.

Basically, good science is centered around evidence (data) and a solid methodology. That’s much different from the Pope Leo XIII, in Providentissimus Deus, saying that every part of the Bible is inspired by god, and thus inerrant.

If as a Scientist, I consider YOUTUBE as my authority, well, I am going to be in for a nasty surprise. Same with a theologian who trusts Youtube to enlighten him about theology.

There’s a difference between seeing what some youtube videos say, and using them as an authority. I get information and ideas from many sources, some more credible than others. If the source isn’t very credible, but it appears to be presenting interesting facts, that’s a place to start research. After that, I could verify those facts by looking in more credible sources. For example, if it’s a scientific claim, I could search for articles in various journals. If it claims that Psalm 137 says that dashing babies against rocks is a source of happiness, I could look up Psalm 137 in the Bible, and search for any commentary on Psalm 137.

My ultimate authority is my reasoning. What I mean is that I’ll evaluate evidence and arguments from various sources and various sides, and come up with the conclusion that makes most sense to me.

The results of these experiments were not to show that you should NOT conform or you should NOT obey authority.

My point with mentioning them was to show that people may change their beliefs and actions based upon authority, instead of by reason. I also wanted to point out that the rate of conformity doubled at my Catholic college.

Side note: I do acknowledge that some of the conformity in Asch’s experiment may have been in action only, not perception. However, studies such as Bergs, G.S., et al (2005) has increased understanding in how often the conformity is on the level of perception and judgment.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

Part 6/6

The point of these experiments were to show that you need to be careful when you choose your authority and what group/society to hang out with. That seems to be one of the biggest problems in your case.

Try to avoid making assumptions about me.

I’ve already stated that I have been attending a passionately Catholic college in the last few years. Additionally, virtually everyone I hang out with is Catholic. The few that aren’t are almost all non-Catholic Christians. In fact, I can only think of two people I know of who I know don’t believe in a god.

Regarding authority, I’ll listen to whatever anyone who has to say, but I’ll also listen to over viewpoints and decide for myself.

All these “Contradictions” cases that you mention so far are either that of

1. Different interpretations OR
2. irrelevant narrative information in gospels

Again, this would go against Providentissimus Deus 20. I suppose one could argue that Providentissimus Deus is an example of an athoritative document which does not fall under the conditions of papal infallibility though (but if that were so, so would many other CC documents).

As I said before, its not the two thieves that matter, its the message we can learn from it. In this sense, there is no contradiction. Once again, considering you are a student of theology, I can’t believe that you are stuck on contradictions of things that are unimportant. Whats going to be next? Some “Contradiction” in numerical accounts in the Bible?

This is again against Providentissimus Deus 20. It is also severely restricting what it means for the Bible to be an inerrant book that is ultimately authored by an omniscient being (through men). I could come up with about a hundred more problems which you consider insignificant. However, I have to ask, why would an omniscience allow so many problems in his holy book, even if some of them are only apparently contradictions?

What do you think of these apparent problems with theological significance:

Would Jesus inherit David’s throne?
Yes. So Said the angel (Luke 1:32)
No, since he is a descendant of Jehoiakim (see Jechoniah in Matthew 1:11 and his father Jehoiakim in I Chronicles 3:16). Jehoiakim was cursed by God so that none of his descendants can sit upon David’s throne (Jeremiah 36:30)
My prof gave a marginal explanation for this.

Is the law of Moses useful?
Yes. “All scripture is… profitable…” (2 Timothy 3:16). “One jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” (Matthew 5:17-18)
No “…A former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness.” (Hebrews 7:18)

Is God ok with human sacrifice?
Yes. Jephthah sacrifices his daughter to Yahweh in Judges 11:29-40 due to a vow he made to Yahweh, and is latter called a man of great faith in Hebrews 11:32-33. Also, in Deuteronomy 13:13-19 Yahweh mandates killing everyone in a town as a human sacrifice as a punishment.
No. One of the Ten Commandments is “You shall not kill” (Exodus 20:13) God condemns human sacrifice to Molech (although one could argue that Yahweh only opposed human sacrifice to false gods) (Lev 18:21, 2 Kings 23:10, Jer 32:35)

To try and highlight your problem with a non-biblical example, it’s like saying Caesar and Cleopatra did not really exist because there are many stories that have contradictions.

This is a bad comparison in many ways. There is a lot of evidence for the existence of Caesar and Cleopatra, while the same is not the case for Jesus. Outside the Bible, there is virtually no evidence for the existence of Jesus (Josephus was not a contemporary of Jesus btw).

Also, Caesar and Cleopatra aren’t currently being worshiped. Since Jesus is, one needs more evidence than merely evidence that he merely existed. If merely existing and claiming to be divine were sufficient to believe in one’s divinity, than Apollonius of Tyana may be divine.

Again, you cannot have inconsistent facts in an inerrant book (unless you re-define “inerrancy”).

I can’t help but think along the lines of the psychological experiments you mentioned and that you have been hanging out with the wrong group and been reading/watching the WRONG authoritative sources.

Again, avoid making assumptions about me. Everyone I come into contact with on a daily basis believes in Yahweh. I’m not exaggerating. I listen to what many people, from various perspectives and with various credentials (or lack of credentials) have to say. I don’t have one set of sources that I rely on.

BTW, if you are actually going to defend things such as slavery (see above), human sacrifice (see above), infanticide (1 Sam 15:3, Duet 20:16, Exodus 12:29, Joshua 10:28-43), dashing babies against rocks (Psalm 137:9, Hosea 13:16), and many other atrocious acts (see above), it’s probably not going to be worth my time responding anymore. If you are ok with all those things, nothing is going to change your mind.

 

[donsnow]

Why the creature with a rational mind and values derived from its (biological) nature of course. How would a man with with a rational mind excuse not judging his creator? To do such would seem to signal abdication of his senses and faculties, as well as moral cowardice.

Yes, this is the kind of moral abdication and cowardice I just referred to. To say God is just, by definition, no matter what “all His doings” are, is the definition of moral abdication in the mind of a man. It’s one thing for a man to review the actions of a putative god and say “these actions are just”. That’s possibly reason based. But to say that some imagined creator is just by definition, as a given, is amoral fideism.

One who won’t judge out of fear he will be judge really should be judged, and a slave.

-TS

Touchstone,

You twice made ad hominum attacks upon my character.
I am not a coward.
You will either withdraw them in writing and apoligize, or I will report you.
I don’t have to take that off any arm chair whatever you are.

Sincerely,
Don D. Snow

 

[ddarko]

Page 1

Aah Truthseeker I wish you behaved in a way that is at least an ounce consistent with your user name. I am going to keep this short.

FIRST,
about inerrancy. The Bible is inerrant in its teachings. The fact that Christ died for us is a teaching. That is inerrant. The fact that there were two thieves around him and one scorned him IS NOT a historical teaching. Only the message that comes from it is teaching. You on the other hand are claiming historical inerrancy of the Bible. No Catholic wants to affirm that position and you as someone studying to be a theologian should know this. This is pretty poor stuff on your part.

Now the birth of Jesus is obviously important. When he was born in terms of historical accuracy is irrelevant. Just the fact that he was born for sure is good enough. If you disagree, you seriously have no clue about theology and probably should drop out.

SECOND,
considering your ‘‘objections’’ and ‘‘retorts’’ to the moral argument, I am seriously doubting your capacity in logic. You tell me how allowing murder is WRONG because many people will get hurt. Well, so what? Do you understand the point of subjective morality? Getting hurt is not wrong either. It IS JUST YOUR OPINION and this is not my view, its yours (I wouldn’t be surprised if you probably don’t even know it).

THIRD,
“This is a bad comparison in many ways. There is a lot of evidence for the existence of Caesar and Cleopatra, while the same is not the case for Jesus. Outside the Bible, there is virtually no evidence for the existence of Jesus (Josephus was not a contemporary of Jesus btw).”

I thought you were a theologian, not a historian (which you clearly demonstrate continuously that you are not). What is the evidence for Caesar and Cleopatra? Do you know how a story is deemed historical? If you do, and if you had ANY experience in historical studies, you would know that historians agree that Jesus historically existed. But hey, you don’t accept authority right… so … who are they to say right?

FOURTH,
“I submit that the references to the Bible I mentioned demonstrate that Yahweh is cruel (meaning he can be either indifferent to suffering, or even take pleasure in causing it). I submit that this cruelty is irreconcilable with the less cruel standard of conduct (morality) that most people adopt today. I consider less cruelty to be a better standard of conduct because if a more cruel standard were adopted, people would suffer more. I’m considering here, that the chief purposes of morality are to relieve suffering and to help others live happy, fulfilling live.”

So how did you determine that suffering is bad? Christianity claims suffering is good at times for one thing. You are implicitly assuming that suffering is bad and judging God on it. The point of the moral argument is, there is no basis to even say suffering is BAD. What kind of logic are you using? Can you show me how you go from ''Suffering" to it is “BAD” ? You are making implicit assumptions that any Christian will not agree with and you are telling them that there God is immoral. What kind of use of logic is that?

FIFTH,
“Again, this would go against Providentissimus Deus 20.”
No one claims inerrancy of the Bible with respect to historical facts. Historical inerrancy is only applicable when it has to do with teachings i.e. Jesus existed, Apostles existed etc. In other words, inerrancy of the Bible is with respect to teachings. You are one confused theologian.

SIXTH,
Again you present some problems with Moses’s law and the new covenant. This is stuff that a first year theology student can answer. Moses’s law is included in the NT. Under the NT commandments, some of the rituals need not be practiced. They have achieved completion and being revealed in full in the NT. That is why we don’t practice circumcision and other kind of stuff that you claim we don’t. There is no contradiction once again. Just very poor understanding on your part.

Same goes for the rest of the examples. They are as I said

1. confusion of multiple interpretations as contradictions
2. concentrating on irrelevant narrative elements on stories and wanting the bible to be inerrant on all historical claims
3. (new one) poor understanding of theology it-self

I seriously do not know how you got in to your program.

 

[ddarko]

Page 2

SEVENTH
I have no problem with God my creator and life giver taking my life or anyone else’s at any time. I see not logical problem with it. You claim the lame argument that it causes suffering. So what? Under the Christian view, suffering is fine. It purifies you. Plus, it’s not like this life is the only life we have. We strive for an eternal life.
Now given the above, you have not brought forth a single valid argument to prove how Yahweh “murdering” someone is immoral.

Whats going to be next? Blame yahweh that you are not immortal in this life because your death will cause suffering? Seriously my good man, wheres your common sense?

EIGTH
"Actually, good science entails drawing a conclusion about a testable hypothesis from statistically significant data that is collected while testing the hypothesis. Good science also reduces subjectivity as much as possible. One may need to have solid credentials in order for others to take one’s scientific work seriously enough to spend time reviewing it for methodological problems.

Basically, good science is centered around evidence (data) and a solid methodology. That’s much different from the Pope Leo XIII, in Providentissimus Deus, saying that every part of the Bible is inspired by god, and thus inerrant."

well I would assume you made this claim because you are a theology student. I happened to have done my undergraduate studies and graduate work in Engineering. So I can tell you with great authority that in a scientific conference, your paper’s acceptance is decided by AUTHORITY. They decide if your paper is valid or not. Similarly, in theology, your claims are validated by AUTHORITY. Now there are no different authorities in the sense you put it. There is no “I AM ANTI SCIENCE” authority and “I AM FOR SCIENCE” authority. There is only a SCIENTIFIC AUTHORITY. This is the same in Theology. There is only one group of people you consider authoritative when it comes to Theology. The rest are lay people who like to make useless points like the ones you keep brining up.

NINTH,
“My ultimate authority is my reasoning. What I mean is that I’ll evaluate evidence and arguments from various sources and various sides, and come up with the conclusion that makes most sense to me.”

Well unfortunately your reasoning does not seem to be in good shape. You make logical fallacies all over the place. You can’t seem to grasp even the simple things as highlighted by the following

*) Presenting Sam harris’s self refuting statement as superb (only high-school students think this way)
*) Your argument from circular logic to support it
*) Rather weird claim that “Evidence is from Reason not from proof”. I mean what does that even mean? Evidence is what you consider as proof.
*) Taking multiple interpretations to be a contradiction
*) Confusion of biblical inerrancy (with respect to teaching) with historical inerrancy (Bible does have historical truths but not all are historical. Talk to a historian at your University)
*) Claims God is immoral, because he did immoral things like cause suffering to people. But if there is no God, why is it wrong to cause suffering in the first place? Is it just your opinion that God caused suffering?
*) Cannot seem to realize that you can’t go from “God the life giver took a life away” to “God is therefore immoral”.
*) Somehow already believes there is no Positive evidence for the existence of God because your reason say these arguments are invalid.

The list goes further but let me stop myself from committing the possible sin of insulting you.

In short, your problem seems to be a profound one. One, you are logically inept but you seem to want to trust your own reasoning ability. So first thing I would advice, get a good background on logic. Pray to the holy spirit to enlighten you (that is if you still do pray). Then re-visit the arguments.

I am afraid I am of no help to you and neither would anyone else on this forum unless you start to realize the terrible logic you keep using. Just the points about your contradictions should suffice for you to see this.

I will keep praying for you as well. That is all I can do at this point.

May God guide you back to the church you have left.

God Bless

 

[Touchstone]

Touchstone,

You twice made ad hominum attacks upon my character.
I am not a coward.
You will either withdraw them in writing and apoligize, or I will report you.
I don’t have to take that off any arm chair whatever you are.

Sincerely,
Don D. Snow

Do what you will. I stand by what I said. Refusing to judge God out of fear of being judged is moral cowardice.

-TS

 

[ddarko]

Do what you will. I stand by what I said. Refusing to judge God out of fear of being judged is moral cowardice.

-TS

If you accept there is a God defined in the Christian sense for the sake of argument, then there is no contradiction in God’s actions. God the sole giver of life can choose to take away life if he pleases and can bring about a greater good. It is on the burden of the atheist to show that this is impossible by showing that NO good can come through it.

If there is NO GOD, what is your standard for morality anyways? Morality is God’s nature. He has revealed how morality applies to us as human beings if we are to be consistent with God’s nature. This in NO WAY implies that God cannot do what humans can’t morally do. God is the giver of life. It is JUST for him to take it as he pleases. Humans are simply receivers of life. They have no right to take life.

You are trying to apply the morality as it applies to humans to God. That is utter nonsense on your part and IS NOT the Christian view. In fact to do so is illogical. If a human kills a fellow human, it is UNJUST because the other human was given life by God. But God on the other hand can JUSTLY take away life since it was his to begin with.

So, I would quiet frankly have to come out and say that your thinking that you are able to judge God who is Justice himself is absolute STUPIDITY on your part and donsnow was absolutely CORRECT in pointing it out to you

God Bless

 

[Rocinante]

If you accept there is a God defined in the Christian sense for the sake of argument, then there is no contradiction in God’s actions.

but if god did contradict himself, would that be wrong? it would seem not since you are saying that whatever god does is moral. does god only do moral things, or does god do the things he does because those things are moral?

 

[ddarko]

but if god did contradict himself, would that be wrong? it would seem not since you are saying that whatever god does is moral. does god only do moral things, or does god do the things he does because those things are moral?

Dear Rocinante, the euthyphro dilemma does not apply to Christianity. Morality is not what God does or neither what God adheres to.

For Christianity, Morality is God’s nature. The problem most people here (and you as well) are making is assuming morality applies the same way to humans as to God. This is obviously illogical.

Take being JUST for an example. For God to take away life that he freely chose to give a human is JUST. Or to put it more correctly, NOT UNJUST. God can take away what he gave away freely. On the other hand, if a human were to kill a fellow human, that is immoral since he has NO right to take away the life God had given to the other person. In fact, it is this injustice against God that makes the human action immoral and inconsistent with God’s nature.

So to answer the very first question, “but if god did contradict himself, would that be wrong?”, the answer is God cannot contradict himself. This is because it is against his nature to contradict.

The problem here is that you are creating a contradiction by using a non-Christian view of morality i.e. it is a set of morals that God adheres to. That view is not even logical since it then raises the question as to where morals are then grounded in the first place. So you’ve already implicitly taken the 2nd option in the Euthryphro Dilemma as you presented it.

To summarize, most atheist (and spiritualist it seems), confuse God for being self-contradictory by these situations given in the OT simply because they are coming from the view that “morality is what God adheres to” or as you put it “god does the things he does because those things are moral”. That view is not the Christian view thus God does not contradict the Christian view of morality. Secondly, that view is not even logical since it then fails to realize that God is the grounding source of morality and if God adheres to it, then morality must be outside of him in a transcendent being. Thus the only possible conclusions are that your initial view of the relationship between God and morality was incorrect or to deny there is an objective morality.

I hope this clarifies your dilemma.

God Bless

 

[Rocinante]

Dear Rocinante, the euthyphro dilemma does not apply to Christianity. Morality is not what God does or neither what God adheres to.

For Christianity, Morality is God’s nature. The problem most people here (and you as well) are making is assuming morality applies the same way to humans as to God. This is obviously illogical.

that’s just a word game. you’ve muddled things but the same problem remains. is morality called good only because it is defined as god’s nature, or is god’s nature good because god really is moral?

 

[ddarko]

that’s just a word game. you’ve muddled things but the same problem remains. is morality called good only because it is defined as god’s nature, or is god’s nature good because god really is moral?

Ok maybe you are missing some philosophical knowledge here but what I said was clear. There has been no muddling.

God’s NATURE is Good. God IS what is good. In other words, God is the definition of goodness. So morality is what is consistent with God’s nature.

But now I see that you’ve changed the dilemma a bit (maybe unknowingly) . I will happily take the first option you present, “morality called good only because it is consistent with god’s nature” with the correction of the word* “defined” *to “consistent”.

If you don’t understand the difference between this proposition and the two in the Euthyphro dilemma, you’ve got greater problems than what I can help you with.

God Bless

 

[Rocinante]

Ok maybe you are missing some philosophical knowledge here but what I said was clear. There has been no muddling.

God’s NATURE is Good. God IS what is good. In other words, God is the definition of goodness. So morality is what is consistent with God’s nature.

But now I see that you’ve changed the dilemma a bit (maybe unknowingly) . I will happily take the first option you present, “morality called good only because it is consistent with god’s nature” with the correction of the word* “defined” *to “consistent”.

what could it then possibly mean to say that god is good? does that just mean that god is god?

 

[ddarko]

what could it then possibly mean to say that god is good? does that just mean that god is god?

No you are looking at it the wrong way. Since God is the source of everything, our actions can either be consistent with God’s nature or contrary to it. Actions that are consistent with God’s nature is GOOD. The others are BAD. That is the only logical way of defining an objective Good and Bad. (Which is the point of the moral argument btw)

So to explain more using the murder example, if God takes away the life from his creation, it is not un-JUST. In-fact, it does not even make sense to call God un-Just because God freely created us. It only becomes unjust if you assume that Morals exist outside of God and is something God adheres to because he considers them good. So in this case, your mistake is that you implicitly assume that there is an objective moral that MURDER/SUFFERING IS BAD outside of God. But as a Christian, that view is unacceptable not to mention the philosophical and logical impossibility of such a view.
On the other hand, if man murders another man, it is contrary to God’s nature. God has chosen to give life to that other person he just murdered. Thus it becomes immoral.

Did that clarify things somewhat?

God Bless

 

[AntiTheist]

No you are looking at it the wrong way. Since God is the source of everything, our actions can either be consistent with God’s nature or contrary to it. Actions that are consistent with God’s nature is GOOD. The others are BAD. That is the only logical way of defining an objective Good and Bad. (Which is the point of the moral argument btw)

Well, what’s at stake is how you know that god’s nature is “good.”

If you’re just defining “good” to mean “god’s nature,” then you’re just making a tautology: “god is god.” You don’t have any reason to think that god is actually good. You’re just calling him that.

For example, when god commands rape and murder (as he does in the Bible), justifies one human being owning another (as he does in the Bible), kills children (as he does in several passages), etc., you have to accept that this behavior is “good.”

And you’re free to do that, but don’t expect other people to go along with it.

 

[Touchstone]

If you accept there is a God defined in the Christian sense for the sake of argument, then there is no contradiction in God’s actions. God the sole giver of life can choose to take away life if he pleases and can bring about a greater good. It is on the burden of the atheist to show that this is impossible by showing that NO good can come through it.

It’s not a claim that holds “no good can come through it”. The immorality here occurs at a higher level, in accepting God as good axiomatically in the first place. If we simply define God’s actions as just, *a priori, *then “good” just becomes an arbitrary construct.

For example, if Yahweh had decided it was good for Abraham to slaughter Isaac on the altar, and made the human sacrifice of the first born son of each family the cosmic good of pious people, then on your view, it would be, by definition, good and just to follow the command for each of us to ritually slaughter our first born sons on a properly prepared altar on the son’s twelfth birthday. You are powerless to resist such a scenario, because on your own terms, you have abdicating all moral reasoning, and delegated it to Yahweh. There is NO depth of atrocity or wickedness your God could demand that wouldn’t worship and celebrate, because you have made God axiomatically just.

From the outside, that’s just sick and disgusting. As one who was a Christian for 30+ years, I well understand the “Just is as just does” principle, and the problem is NOT that some good could not come from any particular decision. Perhaps some silver linings obtain from ritual sacrifice of each family’s first born son. God would be just as just under your Christianity.

If there is NO GOD, what is your standard for morality anyways?

The standard is my reasoning based on my goals, of course. Same as your standard. Yahweh is just the decision you’ve come to personally, your chosen delegate for what’s good and what’s not. I recognize no cosmic delegate, but I decide for myself just as much as you do. I want to live, to be free, to be creative, and to have rewarding relationships with other humans. I live in community as a human so I have personal constraints due to my own goals, and social constraints in the community per their expectations I must abide by as a member of the community.

A basic test for me is:

a) does it fit my goals and declared priorities?
b) Are my gains realized from my own investment and expenses (as opposed to exploiting others resources or freedoms)?
c) How would I react if others behaved similarly toward me, or themselves?
d) If my position depends on evidence and being reasonably informed, have I done my work?
e) What are the risks and costs that are incurred if I’m mistaken?

Morality is God’s nature. He has revealed how morality applies to us as human beings if we are to be consistent with God’s nature.

We don’t have God’s nature. I’m sure that things would look different if I were omniscient, omnipotent, eternal, immutable, and well, let’s just throw “simple” in there for the full crazy. But I’m not a god. I’m just a mortal, human, limited person with a biological nature that makes “god morality” utterly alien to me, even if some god does exist. If I had the technology to create my own life forms, my own “cosmos in a terrarium”, I’d be wicked to expect those creatures I created to adopt my sensibilities and declarations over what proceeds from their nature. I may well have the power to take their lives, even as I gave it, but I’m a foolish god, deserving of curses from my creatures, if that’s how I proceed. They are means to my end, in that case, rather than ends in themselves.

This in NO WAY implies that God cannot do what humans can’t morally do. God is the giver of life. It is JUST for him to take it as he pleases. Humans are simply receivers of life. They have no right to take life.

And here the Catholic dissonance. Man truly has no intrinsic value in his being. It’s only value granted by God. It must be thus, or God would be just as unjust to take life from man or any living thing. Saying "God is just’ here just equivocates badly on “just”, and terms a good and useful term for humans into cruel and cynical euphemism.

You are trying to apply the morality as it applies to humans to God.

Yes, you have it now. On human terms, God is not just, not even respectable on those principles. An evil tyrant.

That is utter nonsense on your part and IS NOT the Christian view.

I understand. But this is to profound demerit of Christianity. It’s anti-human in that regard.

In fact to do so is illogical. If a human kills a fellow human, it is UNJUST because the other human was given life by God. But God on the other hand can JUSTLY take away life since it was his to begin with.

I cannot think of a more wicked and anti-human position to take toward your fellow man. I understand it’s sincere, but this is a good example of Christianity poisoning everything. It doesn’t, contra Hitchens, poison everything – that is hyperbole – but this is Christianity as morally toxic, anti-human.

Such an attitude is just as amenable to worship of Molech and child sacrifice as it is with the Eucharist.

So, I would quiet frankly have to come out and say that your thinking that you are able to judge God who is Justice himself is absolute STUPIDITY on your part and donsnow was absolutely CORRECT in pointing it out to you

God Bless

OK, well, it’s good to get those views out on the table then. I’ve given you my response.

-TS

 

[donsnow]

Why the creature with a rational mind and values derived from its (biological) nature of course. How would a man with with a rational mind excuse not judging his creator? To do such would seem to signal abdication of his senses and faculties, as well as moral cowardice.

Yes, this is the kind of moral abdication and cowardice I just referred to. To say God is just, by definition, no matter what “all His doings” are, is the definition of moral abdication in the mind of a man. It’s one thing for a man to review the actions of a putative god and say “these actions are just”. That’s possibly reason based. But to say that some imagined creator is just by definition, as a given, is amoral fideism.

One who won’t judge out of fear he will be judge really should be judged, and a slave.

-TS

All right.
I’m not a coward to fear God, because it is written, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and before honor comes humility.”

You metion a rational mind twice. Again, it is written, “To be carnal minded is death, but to be spiritual minded is peace and life.”
So, I eschew a rational mind (which is too capable of rationalizing rather than reasoning) for a spiritual mind and faithful heart.
Our priorities are different. I exercise my reason as the handmaiden of my faith and am right to do so.

You have nothing that I want in thought nor morals. It takes courage to recognize, much less exercise, absolute morals and to stand for God in this wicked world. I do that. So, I have not made any moral abdication. I may avoid your morality. But I stand on an eternal morality, not a morality that changes with social whims.

I would advise you to change what you stand on and to stand on Christ the Rock. As it is written, “It is better to fall on the rock and be broken than to have the rock fall on you and be crushed.”

The scriptures in the Holy Bible are life and death, physically and spiritually. It is not wise to belittle them.

God loves you,
Don

 

[donsnow]

Do what you will. I stand by what I said. Refusing to judge God out of fear of being judged is moral cowardice.

-TS

I say it’s spiritual prudence, to fear the Almighty’s judgement.

See my post 198 for further rebuttal.