Question about flood
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-03-2015, 10:29 AM
RE: Question about flood
(19-03-2015 05:55 AM)Nieko Sx Wrote:  There are over a billion people with their own personal hotline to a god that would obey it if their god told them to go and kill their own children? I prefer to think of the majority of people to be inherently moral. If they did think that god was telling them to kill their kids I'd think their doctor should be the first port of call before acting on it. They might be found to be schizophrenic.

Again, changing the scenario. The scenario is that God told me to do it, not that "I think God told me". Get it together.

(19-03-2015 05:55 AM)Nieko Sx Wrote:  I'm inclined to think that you're here to stir up some controversy and don't actually genuinely think this.

I am a Christian, here to defend Christian theism. Smile

(19-03-2015 05:55 AM)Nieko Sx Wrote:  Fortunately man law trumps god law here on earth on these matters & I've heard they really don't treat child murderers very well in prison.

Mans law Laughat
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2015, 10:31 AM
RE: Question about flood
(19-03-2015 12:01 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  On atheism, God doesn't exist, so murdering a child would be no different than snapping the branch of a tree in half...that is how insignificant human life is on the grand scale of things considering life on earth is finite and we will all perish anyway.

I think that even in a world without a god it is still important to not hurt other people. I know what it is like to suffer, because I am a human being too. Therefore, I treat other people the way I would want to be treated in return. When I asked you "What about your Empathy" before, I was asking about your sense of the golden rule. Shouldn't you treat others the way you want to be treated?

In a world without a god, do you think your personal suffering and emotions still matter? Should everyone be free to treat you badly?

Quote:If murder of an innocent is immoral, then an omnibenovolent God wouldn't command it, now would he? See how that works...now, if you give me a scenario at which an omnibenovelent God commands me to do something, then it follows logically that the command is morally just, since an omnibenovelent God cannot command an unjust action.

See how that works. Now, when I was asked the question, I was assuming that the command is coming from an omnibenevolent God (The Christian God), and therefore, of course I will do what God tells me to do.

Is god benevolent because he is god, or does he behave in a way consistent with standards of benevolence?

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness.

-Karl Marx
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2015, 10:34 AM
RE: Question about flood
(19-03-2015 09:28 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(19-03-2015 09:26 AM)IƱigo Wrote:  I agree with Nieko, I don't believe COTW would kill his/her child if asked of god.

Is that a faith position? The only evidence we have on this is that he said he would, in fact, do so.

We also have evidence that when he said it, he meant it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2015, 10:36 AM
RE: Question about flood
(19-03-2015 09:54 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Thanks for yet another "answer" with zero information content. It must be a pretty shitty argument if you're not willing (or able) to say anything about it beyond vague generalities.

I am actually thinking about starting a thread on the MOA Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2015, 10:37 AM
RE: Question about flood
(19-03-2015 10:36 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(19-03-2015 09:54 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Thanks for yet another "answer" with zero information content. It must be a pretty shitty argument if you're not willing (or able) to say anything about it beyond vague generalities.

I am actually thinking about starting a thread on the MOA Consider

There are already threads on it; use the search function.

It has been thoroughly debunked in those.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2015, 10:37 AM
RE: Question about flood
(19-03-2015 10:01 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  
(19-03-2015 09:49 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Modal Ontological Argument = a damn good argument for the existence of God.

A damn good argument for the napkin god. Did I convert you?

[Image: 1f5c7a6acdb450ddd4911a613487da6f.jpg]

Hey, it is what it is Cool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2015, 10:43 AM
RE: Question about flood
(19-03-2015 10:12 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(19-03-2015 09:54 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Thanks for yet another "answer" with zero information content. It must be a pretty shitty argument if you're not willing (or able) to say anything about it beyond vague generalities.

  1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
  2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
  3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
  4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
  5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
  6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

It is obviously flawed - you can't get to 4 from 3, nor is 'maximally great' even defined.

To hell with the MOA thread, apparently@ Grasshopper.

Chas here has already set it off...so lets get on with it, shall we Big Grin

First off, you (Chas) said that maximally great isn't defined, which is why a defender of the MOA may want to start off by DEFINING "maximally great", and that is done by explaining the four O's (Omni's).

Second, you said that you can't get to 4 from 3, which is ridiculous because if #3 is true, then 4 just logically follows from 3.

So keep trying, Chas. I will correct you as you go along.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2015, 10:45 AM
RE: Question about flood
(19-03-2015 10:37 AM)Chas Wrote:  There are already threads on it; use the search function.

It has been thoroughly debunked in those.

It only has the appearance of being debunked since I wasn't the one there to do the defending.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2015, 10:51 AM
RE: Question about flood
(19-03-2015 10:43 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(19-03-2015 10:12 AM)Chas Wrote:  
  1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
  2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
  3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
  4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
  5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
  6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

It is obviously flawed - you can't get to 4 from 3, nor is 'maximally great' even defined.

To hell with the MOA thread, apparently@ Grasshopper.

Chas here has already set it off...so lets get on with it, shall we Big Grin

First off, you (Chas) said that maximally great isn't defined, which is why a defender of the MOA may want to start off by DEFINING "maximally great", and that is done by explaining the four O's (Omni's).

Second, you said that you can't get to 4 from 3, which is ridiculous because if #3 is true, then 4 just logically follows from 3.

So keep trying, Chas. I will correct you as you go along.

No, #4 does not follow. There is no guarantee of uniqueness; there could be any number of maximally great beings, they're all equally great.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2015, 10:52 AM
RE: Question about flood
(19-03-2015 10:45 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(19-03-2015 10:37 AM)Chas Wrote:  There are already threads on it; use the search function.

It has been thoroughly debunked in those.

It only has the appearance of being debunked since I wasn't the one there to do the defending.

A little arrogant? No, a lot arrogant. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: