Pro life thought experiment

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

You can attempt to redefine terms all you want, but I’ve already demonstrated that the Church speaks of the “morality of human acts”.

I speak of the actual meaning of the word. If the church speaks of something else, that is not my problem.

You’re being unreasonable here on two counts, @Scowler. First off, I’m sure you recognize the amazingly weak debating tactic of going to a dictionary definition and then refusing to depart from it, especially when dealing with ‘terms of art’. Many of the theological topics we discuss on these forums utilize the particular jargon of Christian theology. Insisting that you’re using “common” or “actual” definitions is a weak response – either you use the words as they’re understood in a particular context, or ask what the particular jargon means… but don’t stand there and dig in your heels and pretend that you don’t realize that you’re skewing the conversation.

Second, you’re refusing to use the actual terms that are being used in the conversation, and insisting that some alternative context is in play! I’ve demonstrated to you from the Catechism that the context is “the morality of human acts”, not “the morality of acts of God.” So, you can’t dig in your heels and claim that the context is “God’s acts.” Moreover, within the context of the “morality of human acts”, the meaning of the phrase “absolute morality” means “a morality that is not relative to the circumstances of the act.”

Stomping your feet, throwing a tantrum, and insisting your definition of terms of art in theology will get you nowhere.

Scowler:

Again: “Scowler knows best.”

Show me a positive test, which confirms what you say about God, and I will eat humble pie. You see, I am wide open to consider real evidence. But hearsay and browbeating are not “evidence”.

Here we go again… yet another “reasonable” request for physical evidence of transcendental beings. Oh, will you never tire of that game?

This whole “give and take” reminds me of an old joke. Two guys walk around in Africa, and see a lion stalking them. One of them opens his backpack, takes out his running shoes and puts them on. The other one laughs, and says: “Do you think you can outrun the lion in those shoes?” And the first one answers: “No, but it is sufficient that I can outrun YOU”.

That’s what I dislike about debates: they don’t prove whose point is correct – just who argues more persuasively.

 

[Scowler]

I’ve demonstrated to you from the Catechism that the context is “the morality of human acts”, not “the morality of acts of God.”

That cop-out is understood but unaccepted. There is no reason to accept: “Genocide is evil, when performed by humans”. However “Genocide is the sign or supreme love, when performed by God”.

Here we go again… yet another “reasonable” request for physical evidence of transcendental beings.

A short summary:
Apologist: “You shall not put God to the test”.
Skeptic: “Why? Is it because every time you put God to the test, it will fail?”.
Apologist: “God is not a physical being, so it is unreasonable to test God”.
Skeptic: “God is whatever he wants to be. So it is reasonable to ask for a physical test”.
Apologist changes tactics and tries to go on the offensive: “How dare you demand God to perform tricks for you?”
Skeptic: “I don’t demand anything. I merely point out that God could be detected by physical means. And every such test fails.”

And that is the point. You may be willing to follow blindly what you believe God said. I am not. However, I am open to the demonstration that what you say about God is more than just your opinion. If you are unable to provide evidence, then - “tough luck”. The sad thing is that the church is also unable to provide any evidence. And God is so silent, that the silence is deafening.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

I’ve demonstrated to you from the Catechism that the context is “the morality of human acts”, not “the morality of acts of God.”

That cop-out is understood but unaccepted. There is no reason to accept: “Genocide is evil, when performed by humans”. However “Genocide is the sign or supreme love, when performed by God”.

No cop-out, just a clarification. You cannot judge God by man’s standards (just as it would be ludicrous to judge you by the same standards that I’d judge a five-year-old).

Here we go again… yet another “reasonable” request for physical evidence of transcendental beings.

A short summary:

Nope. Nice attempt to put words in our mouths, but not true in the least.

Skeptic: “God is whatever he wants to be. So it is reasonable to ask for a physical test”.

Aah, but you’ve changed the playing field from “God is whatever he wants to be” to “God should be whatever I say he should be.”

Therefore, it is not reasonable for you to assert that God should do something merely because you ask for it.

Skeptic: “I don’t demand anything.”

No… you just ask for something that you know you will not receive. Quite reasonable.

unable to provide evidence, then - “tough luck”. The sad thing is that the church is also unable to provide any evidence. And God is so silent, that the silence is deafening.

God is not silent: it’s just that you refuse to listen to the frequency on which he’s broadcasting. As you would say, ‘tough luck’ that you refuse what’s available.

 

[Scowler]

You cannot judge God by man’s standards (just as it would be ludicrous to judge you by the same standards that I’d judge a five-year-old).

A 5 years old is below the age of reason. That is why the different standards apply. In the story of genesis, humans were said to become like God, knowing good from evil - which is the definition of a “moral agent”. That is why God is judged by the same standard. Now you might try to say that God is more powerful than we are, so he can use the argument of “might makes right”, but that is even worse.

Nice attempt to put words in our mouths, but not true in the least.

They were all actual quotes, some of them from you.

Aah, but you’ve changed the playing field from “God is whatever he wants to be” to “God should be whatever I say he should be.”

No, I did not change it. You did. All I said that God can be put to the test - and he fails every time. Your only argument was that God is not a physical being. To that I replied that God can be a physical being, if he so chooses. If he does not do it, then he loses “by default”, just like the team which refuses to show up for the tournament.

God is not silent: it’s just that you refuse to listen to the frequency on which he’s broadcasting.

Ah, so it is again my fault? I see that you like to play the con-game by saying: “If it is heads, I win, if it is tails, you lose”. By the way, which broadcast is that? The blind acceptance of your assertions? I have asked many times just what should I do to get that “broadcast”? And the answer was, it will happen, if and when God decides. Well, that is another “trick” the apologists like to play: “if it does not happen, it is YOUR fault, you cannot dictate when God should speak to you and what language should God use”. Yep, the old con-came. You still assert: “If it is heads, we win, if it is tails, you lose”. So you have absolutely no credibility, due to your “con-games”.

 

[Gorgias]

A 5 years old is below the age of reason. That is why the different standards apply.

Fine. Eight-year-old, then. The assertion still holds.

In the story of genesis, humans were said to become like God, knowing good from evil - which is the definition of a “moral agent”.

That still doesn’t demonstrate that God and man are moral agents that should be assessed according to the same standard.

That is why God is judged by the same standard.

Sadly, no. Eight-year-olds raised by wolves and you yourself are both moral agents. Eight-year-olds raised by wolves and you yourself aren’t judged by the same standard. QED.

Now you might try to say that God is more powerful than we are, so he can use the argument of “might makes right”, but that is even worse.

Nope; I don’t have to resort to that assertion to disprove your claims.

Gorgias:

Nice attempt to put words in our mouths

They were all actual quotes, some of them from you.

Thank you for demonstrating that you attempted to put words in my mouth. It’s much easier to debate when my interlocutor proves my points himself.

To that I replied that God can be a physical being, if he so chooses. If he does not do it, then he loses “by default”, just like the team which refuses to show up for the tournament.

Your assertion would be worth refuting, if God were a team that signed up for a tournament but didn’t show up. God didn’t sign up for your thought experiment, so he isn’t beholden to your rules or your whims. Still… nice try.

Ah, so it is again my fault? I see that you like to play the con-game by saying: “If it is heads, I win, if it is tails, you lose”.

No. It’s more like “heads, I win. tails, you win”… and then you reply “there’s no coin”. And then I roll my eyes at your protestations of blindness, and take the coin and walk away.

 

[Scowler]

Fine. Eight-year-old, then. The assertion still holds.

Gotta love how you try to change the goalposts. But 8 years olds cannot make proper assessments about moral dilemmas either. But as soon as someone is aware of such questions, it is rational to hold them to the same standard.

That still doesn’t demonstrate that God and man are moral agents that should be assessed according to the same standard.

Why not? Just because he is God? Every moral agent must be held to the same standard. Be they human adults, sentient dolphins, or travelers from outer space. If you know “good” from “evil”, and do not act accordingly, you will be judged accordingly.

Eight-year-olds raised by wolves and you yourself are both moral agents.

Are you talking about Mowgli from the Jungle Book? Because that is really just a story. Feral children cannot be held to the same standards as us. They are really animals. And animals are not moral agents.

Thank you for demonstrating that you attempted to put words in my mouth.

Baloney. Quoting your own words is not the same as putting someone else’s words into your mouth. The sad thing is that you refuse to own up your own words.

Your assertion would be worth refuting, if God were a team that signed up for a tournament but didn’t show up.

God was and is invited to the “tournament” - or more precisely a conversation, and he declines to participate. So we have no other option but to draw our conclusions. We are open to accept God’s (name removed by moderator)ut, and as soon as he can explain his acts (or lack of them), we are ready to eat that “humble pie”, as I stated it before.

 

[Scowler]

No. It’s more like “heads, I win. tails, you win”… and then you reply “there’s no coin”.

You were the one who accused me of not willing to listen to God’s “broadcast”. So tell me about the “frequency” so that I can tune in. The ball is in your court.

 

[Gorgias]

Gotta love how you try to change the goalposts. But 8 years olds cannot make proper assessments about moral dilemmas either. But as soon as someone is aware of such questions, it is rational to hold them to the same standard.

Same goalposts, same assertion. You didn’t like “five-year-old”, so I gave you another example that holds. And, of course, in responding, you proved my point: just as there’s a difference between the ability of an eight-year-old and an adult in making thorough moral assessments, so there is a difference between adults and God. So glad you understand and agree with my point.

Why not? Just because he is God?

Precisely. He has access to more info than we do, and therefore, the thought that we can judge his decisions is laughable (not to mention the height of hubris itself).

If you know “good” from “evil”, and do not act accordingly, you will be judged accordingly.

Again, thank you for proving my point. If God is all-knowing and you (presumably) are not, how can you judge his actions?

Baloney. Quoting your own words is not the same as putting someone else’s words into your mouth.

You admitted that, in your made-up dialogue to me, you used “some words” from me. In other words, by your admission, you were using others that weren’t. (Do I really need to keep explaining this to you? )

Your assertion would be worth refuting, if God were a team that signed up for a tournament but didn’t show up.

God was and is invited to the “tournament” - or more precisely a conversation, and he declines to participate.

Thank you, thank you, thank you! YES – teams that do not accept the invitation do not thereby forfeit any games! (You’re really doing a journeyman’s job of refuting your own cases today. Thanks!)

So we have no other option but to draw our conclusions.

Of course you have other options, one of which is “God doesn’t play according to our rules, but he does play. Hmm… maybe I should accept the invitation to His tournament?!?”

 

[Gorgias]

So tell me about the “frequency” so that I can tune in. The ball is in your court.

You know the frequency. You refuse to listen to it. This thread (and others) are rife with examples of your assertion that you do not accept the means to hear his word which you have been given…

 

[Scowler]

just as there’s a difference between the ability of an eight-year-old and an adult in making thorough moral assessments, so there is a difference between adults and God

No there is not. Both are moral agents. An eight years old is just a child, not a moral agent. Underage (juvenile) criminals are not judged by the same criteria as adults.

Precisely. He has access to more info than we do, and therefore, the thought that we can judge his decisions is laughable

Aha. So because God knows more, he can allow genocides, and still retain the adjective “good”. A typical blind faith argument. But, as I really said, many times, let’s see the explanation. God IS really silent, so you need to step up and provide the explanation. What are the exact, detailed arguments you can bring up to explain the genocides (or the famine in Africa)? Let me enlighten you what the church says about the problem of evil: “it is a MYSTERY. We have no idea, but we have (blind ) faith and accept it without arguments”. Is that the “best” you can do?

You admitted that, in your made-up dialogue to me, you used “some words” from me. In other words, by your admission, you were using others that weren’t.

Yes, I also quoted others - correctly. I used a collective name “Apologist”. So I did not put any words into YOUR mouth. I quoted several apologists. Give a critique of what I said, instead of trying to wiggle out.

Thank you, thank you, thank you! YES – teams that do not accept the invitation do not thereby forfeit any games!

They certainly forfeit any positive assessment about their ability to play, and their reputation. But you admitted that God is silent.

Of course you have other options, one of which is “God doesn’t play according to our rules, but he does play. Hmm… maybe I should accept the invitation to His tournament?!?”

As soon as he extends the invitation to me, I will be happy to play. But he is still silent.

 

[Scowler]

You know the frequency. You refuse to listen to it.

Bovine waste product. You really think that you are privy to my internal thoughts? Well, you are not. If I say that I have no access to the “frequency” of God’s broadcast, then I don’t have it. Of course I used to be a believer. Behaved as I was supposed to behave. God never spoke to me then, and does not speak to me now.

This thread (and others) are rife with examples of your assertion that you do not accept the means to hear his word which you have been given…

Of course I don’t accept them, because they don’t work. First of all, none of those alleged methods enable me to hear God’s word DIRECTLY.

You say that the catholic church has been given the authority to speak for God. Obviously, that is just a self-proclaimed authority. What kind of evidence can you supply? The bible, the magisterium and the “sacred” tradition. All of them are concoctions made up by humans who belong to the church. Moreover, the church has made more than ample amount of “screw-ups” which tell us that God does NOT speak through the church. God did not prevent the sexual abuses, not did he immediately smack down the ones, who attempted to hide the guilty ones. And here are a few more:

1. The church is unable to provide an excuse or explanation for the problem of evil.
2. It is unable to provide a rationale for the “limbo” or its abandonment.
3. It can only “hope” that the unbaptized might get to heaven.
4. It is unable to give some “teaching” what will happen to those who have heard the “good news”, but reject it… even though they live an exemplary life.

In other words, the church is woefully incompetent to supply “teaching” about these extremely important questions. So why should anyone give credence to anything else it “teaches”? Not to mention that many of the “teachings” are simply nonsensical.

There is the “excuse” that there was no “revelation” for these questions. Well, guess what. The so-called revelations ended about 2000 years ago. Whatever happened since then is just a human invention.

So, the conclusion is simple. God does not speak to anyone. The church can claim that God speaks through it, but has no evidence for it. It is just one of those “claims”, which are proclaimed without evidence.

 

[Gorgias]

No there is not. Both are moral agents. An eight years old is just a child, not a moral agent. Underage (juvenile) criminals are not judged by the same criteria as adults.

The eight-year-old is definitely a moral agent – “age of reason”, remember? You’re the one that brought that consideration to the table. So, I picked someone over the age of reason.

If you don’t care to debate the point, because you’ve painted yourself into a corner, I’ll understand.

Aha. So because God knows more, he can allow genocides, and still retain the adjective “good”. A typical blind faith argument.

Yes, but you’re acting on blind faith, too! You claim not to hear God, so – in the absence of evidence – you claim him ‘not presence’. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the scowler…

Give a critique of what I said, instead of trying to wiggle out.

I already did, but it’s apparently of more concern to you to nitpick than to discuss rationally.

They certainly forfeit any positive assessment about their ability to play, and their reputation. But you admitted that God is silent.

No… I admitted that he isn’t playing your game. He’s been very active in playing his game, though, and inviting us to that game.

Bovine waste product. You really think that you are privy to my internal thoughts? Well, you are not. If I say that I have no access to the “frequency” of God’s broadcast, then I don’t have it. Of course I used to be a believer. Behaved as I was supposed to behave. God never spoke to me then, and does not speak to me now.

Think, @Scowler, think! What avenues of God’s expression have you told us that you reject?

 

[Scowler]

The eight-year-old is definitely a moral agent – “age of reason”, remember?

The age of reason is just a human invention, for some humans. As soon as that child exhibits the signs of really KNOWING good from evil, then we do and must accept him as a moral agent, and treat him accordingly. However society does not accept them, because juveniles are not accepted as full-blown moral agents.

Yes, but you’re acting on blind faith, too! You claim not to hear God, so – in the absence of evidence – you claim him ‘not presence’.

What will you next time demand evidence for? Something that never happened? Oops, you just did… that is a new plateau in irrationality - even for you. Congratulations.

Think, @Scowler, think! What avenues of God’s expression have you told us that you reject?

I only reject the nonexistent “avenues”. Show me a real one.

 

[Gorgias]

The age of reason is just a human invention, for some humans. As soon as that child exhibits the signs of really KNOWING good from evil, then we do and must accept him as a moral agent, and treat him accordingly. However society does not accept them, because juveniles are not accepted as full-blown moral agents.

Gorgias:

Fine. You’re not helping your case, though – just pushing the ‘start date’ a little.

So, just to humor you (although this is wearing quite thin), I’ll repeat the assertion a third time: just as there’s a difference between the ability of an 18-year-old and an adult in making thorough moral assessments, so there is a difference between adults and God.

Have a lovely day, @Scowler.

What will you next time demand evidence for?

You seem to be confused: I’m not the one demanding evidence, you are. And, in fact, you’re demanding empirical evidence for a transcendental being. And I’m the irrational one? Pot, meet kettle…

 

[Scowler]

Fine. You’re not helping your case, though – just pushing the ‘start date’ a little.

A little? There is only one millimeter difference between staying on the verge of a cliff or dropping down to your death. But that difference is not simply quantitative, it is qualitative, and makes all the difference in the world. The difference is not just the age, but the ability to discern right from wrong. An adult who is 40 years old, but mentally retarded is not a moral agent.

So, just to humor you (although this is wearing quite thin), I’ll repeat the assertion a third time: just as there’s a difference between the ability of an 18-year-old and an adult in making thorough moral assessments, so there is a difference between adults and God.

The number of repetitions does not help you. It only shows that you have no arguments. Even if God is much more knowledgeable and more powerful than we are, it does NOT give him a “carte blanche” get-out-of-jail card. Being more powerful and knowledgeable is not an excuse to commit or allow any atrocities. You would need specific arguments, which would show that those “seemingly” obvious atrocities are actually “blessings in disguise”, and preventing those atrocities would make an even worse state of affairs. Of course you are unable to present such arguments, and that is not a surprise, since even the church considers it a “mystery”. From the (alleged) fact that God is more knowledgeable than we are it does not follow LOGICALLY that God is benevolent.

You seem to be confused: I’m not the one demanding evidence, you are. And, in fact, you’re demanding empirical evidence for a transcendental being. And I’m the irrational one? Pot, meet kettle…

In this thread I am trying to find out (not demanding!) if you have any excuse for the behavior of God. And - as usual - I don’t get any answers.

So far you asserted that I am not willing to “tune in” to the frequency where God “broadcasts”. When I asked where can I find that frequency, you said that I know where it is, effectively calling me a liar. I have no idea where can I hear God’s voice. And no one could answer this very simple question.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Gorgias:

You can attempt to redefine terms all you want, but I’ve already demonstrated that the Church speaks of the “morality of human acts”.

I speak of the actual meaning of the word. If the church speaks of something else, that is not my problem.

No, it is your problem. If you are going to criticize what the Church means by “absolute morality” you have to use their definition. You can criticize their choice of words to express their meaning, but you can’t criticize their meaning unless you use their definition.

 

[Scowler]

No, it is your problem. If you are going to criticize what the Church means by “absolute morality” you have to use their definition. You can criticize their choice of words to express their meaning, but you can’t criticize their meaning unless you use their definition.

Nonsense. The church’s use of “absolute morality” is a meaningless word salad. Absolute means “under any and all circumstances”. Relative means “under some, but not all circumstances”. This is not semantics, or hair splitting, it is having a coherent communication. If these words are used differently, then the person talks gibberish - like saying “relatively absolute”. If someone starts to use made-up words, or uses words out of their meanings, there can be no communication.

Going back to the problem at hand, it is nonsense to say that “absolute morality” is applicable to humans, but inapplicable to God. That is “relative morality” - which is an oxymoron.

On the other hand, to say that a law is “applicable for humans, but inapplicable for God” is fine, but then the next question is: “why? just because God is a special case?”, and if the answer is: “yes, God is a special case. God can do whatever he wants, and we are not allowed to criticize”. A perfectly legitimate answer, though the next question will be: “Why? because God is the strongest bully around the block, and might makes right?” This would be a justification, but very dangerous answer, because anyone who is stronger than you can invoke this principle, and beat the living “crap” out of you.

If your answer is different, then you need to give some actual reasons why we should not criticize God. Gorgias tried the idea that God’s knowledge is superior to ours, and therefore we are not in the position to criticize. Just like some other apologists, he tries to say: “MAYBE there is a very good reason for God allowing these atrocities”, even though we are not aware of those reasons. However “MAYBE” is not an argument.

That is also baloney. From superior knowledge it does not follow the other party is benevolent and that is being questioned here. We are not obliged to blindly believe that the criminal is allowed to kidnap, torture, rape and kill the victim, just because it was God who allowed it. No human judge would allow such a defense - and God is the accused in this unofficial court. If you wish to assert that this kidnap, torture, rape, murder is actually the very best sequence of events, you MUST ARGUE for it - and the generic nonsense (God allowed it because that is the best solution) is definitely not allowed. If you have a rational argument, let’s hear it. If you don’t… what are you doing here?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

No, it is your problem. If you are going to criticize what the Church means by “absolute morality” you have to use their definition. You can criticize their choice of words to express their meaning, but you can’t criticize their meaning unless you use their definition.

Nonsense. The church’s use of "absolute morality is a meaningless word salad. Absolute means “under any and all circumstances”. Relative means “under some, but not all circumstances”.

As you have already noted, you don’t even believe this yourself. You said that morality does not apply to unthinking animals, but only to “moral agents.” But what is a moral agent? It is something for whom the term morality is applicable. (a circular definition of morality). So you don’t believe morality is applicable to all circumstances - only to those circumstances for which it is applicable. Your set of “allowable” circumstances is no better than the Church’s definition of “allowable” circumstances where moral rules apply.

On the other hand, to say that a law is “applicable for humans, but inapplicable for God” is fine, but then the next question is: “why? just because God is a special case?”

Yes. We consider God so different from creatures that we would not expect God to to be subject to rules of morality that are normally used to constrain human behavior. Not because God is the biggest bully on the block. But because God is not human - except when He was. And when He was, you will note that He did abide by the same rules of morality that He expects of us. There was no smiting by Jesus incarnate, or any other violation of human morality.

If your answer is different, then you need to give some actual reasons why we should not criticize God.

This is nothing short of asking for proof that God is God as we believe Him to be. For if you accept as an axiom what we say is the nature of God, there would be no question but that God has the right to take life and give it - to punish or to reward. Of course if the only concept of God that you can accept is sort of a super powerful being - but essentially limited in time and space just as we are, then you would naturally want to apply all the same rules of human behavior to God. But since you don’t really believe there is a God, then arguing about what He is morally allowed to do is kind of a moot point, isn’t it?

 

[anthony022071]

You save whoever you can. In real life, the options would not be mutually exclusive.

These kinds of questions are often intended to tempt people into moral relativism or pragmatism.

 

[Scowler]

You said that morality does not apply to unthinking animals, but only to “moral agents.” But what is a moral agent? It is something for whom the term morality is applicable. (a circular definition of morality).

Come on! A moral agent is someone who is able to discern “right” from “wrong” and is able to act accordingly. There is nothing circular about it.

Yes. We consider God so different from creatures that we would not expect God to be subject to rules of morality that are normally used to constrain human behavior. Not because God is the biggest bully on the block. But because God is not human - except when He was.

That is nonsense. Even if an extraterrestrial would come to Earth with incredible powers, we would classify him as “evil” if his behavior would be evil - according to OUR, HUMAN standards. Of course you can classify God’s behavior as you wish. But if you cannot justify this on fully rational (aka secular) grounds, you will not be accepted or respected as a rational being. A morally good person does not perform or allow gratuitous pain and suffering, that is the definition of a morally good person. And if God performs or allows gratuitous pain and suffering, then God is NOT a morally good person - by definition. Of course if you dig in your heels and assert that God is always a morally good person, even if he performs/allows reprehensible acts, that is again your prerogative, but don’t be surprised if you will be considered an irrational person.

This is nothing short of asking for proof that God is God as we believe Him to be.

Yes, that is exactly right. From the assumption that God created heaven and Earth nothing else follows except that he was able to do it. No corollary of being a loving, caring, benevolent entity. Those have to established by observing and evaluating the reality. And the observed reality shows an uncaring (if not downright evil) God, who cares nothing about our fate, either here or in the afterlife.

For if you accept as an axiom what we say is the nature of God, there would be no question but that God has the right to take life and give it - to punish or to reward.

No, not even then would I accept it. It would still be a “might makes right” argument. Maybe YOU would glorify God even if he would punish the saints and reward the evil - that is your right. But don’t expect others to follow you. If the words “good” and “evil” have an actual meaning to them, then they must be applicable to God, otherwise they are meaningless nonsense. The age old Euthyphro dilemma raises its “ugly” head… the OTHER unsolvable dilemma as the thorn in the side of Christianity.