Question about flood
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-03-2015, 11:06 AM
RE: Question about flood
(19-03-2015 10:31 AM)Dark Phoenix Wrote:  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?

Well, I will put it to you this way; I do believe in the Golden Rule...but without God, I don't necessarily believe it. Here is where you guys are gonna really be pissed, based on what I am about to say.

If God didn't exist, I would be a serial killer. Because without God, there is just no objective right or wrong. If a lion goes on a killing spree against hyena's, just carelessly killing any hyena it comes across...is the lion wrong? I just don't see the purpose of life without God...we are just mishaps of nature, there was no plan for us to be here. There is no moral accountability. We just live, and die. Now sure, we can create purpose for ourselves, but the purpose seems to me to be illusory, it means absolutely nothing.

If a huge comet comes and completely wipes out all life on earth, and there isn't any life forever....then what difference does it make if you choose to live your life like Mother Teresa, or Adolf Hitler?

(19-03-2015 10:31 AM)Dark Phoenix Wrote:  Is god benevolent because he is god, or does he behave in a way consistent with standards of benevolence?

Both. His character reflects who he is...you know how good people tend to do good things, and bad people tend to do bad thing...their actions are based on who they are, that is why Jesus said "By their fruits you will recognize them" (Matth 7:16)...apples tree produce apples, orange trees produce oranges, etc.

Since God has the highest standard of benevolence, he MUST behave in a way consistent with this standard....that is why without doubt if God tells you to do something, it is the right thing to do...which is why I wouldn't hesitate to kill my child if God told me to...not to mention the fact that all life belongs to God anyway.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2015, 11:13 AM
RE: Question about flood
(19-03-2015 10:51 AM)Chas Wrote:  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.

Occams Razor...only one maximally great being is needed and there is no reason to multiply the beings beyond necessity. What we have is physical life, consciousness, a physical world, and objective morality...all of these things BEGAN to exist (objective morality began to exist in man)....these things require a transcendent explanation, and only ONE maximally great being is needed to explain these things, so therefore, we need not postulate any more maximally great beings (MGB's) if we only need one to get the job done.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2015, 11:17 AM
RE: Question about flood
(19-03-2015 11:06 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(19-03-2015 10:31 AM)Dark Phoenix Wrote:  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?

Well, I will put it to you this way; I do believe in the Golden Rule...but without God, I don't necessarily believe it. Here is where you guys are gonna really be pissed, based on what I am about to say.

If God didn't exist, I would be a serial killer. Because without God, there is just no objective right or wrong. If a lion goes on a killing spree against hyena's, just carelessly killing any hyena it comes across...is the lion wrong? I just don't see the purpose of life without God...we are just mishaps of nature, there was no plan for us to be here. There is no moral accountability. We just live, and die. Now sure, we can create purpose for ourselves, but the purpose seems to me to be illusory, it means absolutely nothing.

If a huge comet comes and completely wipes out all life on earth, and there isn't any life forever....then what difference does it make if you choose to live your life like Mother Teresa, or Adolf Hitler?

(19-03-2015 10:31 AM)Dark Phoenix Wrote:  Is god benevolent because he is god, or does he behave in a way consistent with standards of benevolence?

Both. His character reflects who he is...you know how good people tend to do good things, and bad people tend to do bad thing...their actions are based on who they are, that is why Jesus said "By their fruits you will recognize them" (Matth 7:16)...apples tree produce apples, orange trees produce oranges, etc.

Since God has the highest standard of benevolence, he MUST behave in a way consistent with this standard....that is why without doubt if God tells you to do something, it is the right thing to do...which is why I wouldn't hesitate to kill my child if God told me to...not to mention the fact that all life belongs to God anyway.


Thanks for believing COtW.




If God didn't exist, I would be a serial killer. Because without God, there is just no objective right or wrong - Call_of_the_Wild

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2015, 11:35 AM
RE: Question about flood
(19-03-2015 11:13 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(19-03-2015 10:51 AM)Chas Wrote:  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.

Occams Razor...only one maximally great being is needed and there is no reason to multiply the beings beyond necessity. What we have is physical life, consciousness, a physical world, and objective morality...all of these things BEGAN to exist (objective morality began to exist in man)....these things require a transcendent explanation, and only ONE maximally great being is needed to explain these things, so therefore, we need not postulate any more maximally great beings (MGB's) if we only need one to get the job done.

I am pointing out that the logical inference is incorrect. You can't go from 'possible' to 'unique' - that is a logic error.

Occam's Razor is a rule of thumb, not a law of logic.

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, 11:37 AM
RE: Question about flood
(19-03-2015 10:29 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Again, changing the scenario. The scenario is that God told me to do it, not that "I think God told me". Get it together.


Ok, so we can run with the idea that your god without doubt totally 100% clearly and definitively TOLD you to kill your kid. That makes your god a sadistic maniac that can't even stick to one set of his own commandments.

(19-03-2015 10:29 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I am a Christian, here to defend Christian theism. Smile

You may well believe that to be true however I think you are here to either a) save souls or b) stir up trouble, most likely the latter.

(19-03-2015 10:29 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Mans law Laughat

Fortunately whilst you're a resident of this earth you are subject to the hilarious concept that is man's law. Again I really don't think you'd go through with killing a child ~ think the scenario through... anyone with any shred of compassion and decency is going to call god out on this one.

I could elaborate on this but I don't want to stroke that neglected ego of yours any longer, you're obviously enjoying the attention you're getting, perhaps god stopped telling you to do stuff and you're that lonely that you've had to come play with the poor atheists so you can inject some light into their miserable unfulfilled lives before they go to hell.

- Talking lions, magic wardrobes, witches with Turkish Delight - GOOD - Muggles, Quidditch and Dark Arts Lessons - BAD -
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2015, 11:40 AM
RE: Question about flood
(19-03-2015 11:13 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(19-03-2015 10:51 AM)Chas Wrote:  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.

Occams Razor...only one maximally great being is needed and there is no reason to multiply the beings beyond necessity. What we have is physical life, consciousness, a physical world, and objective morality...all of these things BEGAN to exist (objective morality began to exist in man)....these things require a transcendent explanation, and only ONE maximally great being is needed to explain these things, so therefore, we need not postulate any more maximally great beings (MGB's) if we only need one to get the job done.

The bolded part is an assertion for which you have failed to provide any proof or justification. In your mind, they require a "transcendent explanation". I don't see that they require any such thing. Also, step 3 of the general argument makes the bold claim that something that exists in one possible world must exist in all possible worlds. Say what??? This is the same sort of gobbledygook as the original ontological argument. Neither is the least bit convincing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2015, 11:44 AM
RE: Question about flood
(19-03-2015 11:37 AM)Nieko Sx Wrote:  Again I really don't think you'd go through with killing a child ~ think the scenario through... anyone with any shred of compassion and decency is going to call god out on this one.

You are assuming facts not in evidence. 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
19-03-2015, 11:57 AM
RE: Question about flood
If it's not too late CotW, please don't breed. Do the world a big favor. Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like H4ym4n's post
19-03-2015, 11:59 AM (This post was last modified: 19-03-2015 01:01 PM by Nieko Sx.)
RE: Question about flood
(19-03-2015 11:44 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(19-03-2015 11:37 AM)Nieko Sx Wrote:  Again I really don't think you'd go through with killing a child ~ think the scenario through... anyone with any shred of compassion and decency is going to call god out on this one.

You are assuming facts not in evidence. Drinking Beverage

Granted Chas, I have no evidence that Cotw is not a homicidal maniac or indeed has compassion or decency. I do however see evidence from his posts of a seriously over inflated ego and questionable ethics in putting Mother Teresa and Adolf Hitler at opposing ends of a 'good person/bad person' spectrum.

Cotw possibly has a few things in common with Mother Teresa especially relating to god and infant mortality.

- Talking lions, magic wardrobes, witches with Turkish Delight - GOOD - Muggles, Quidditch and Dark Arts Lessons - BAD -
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2015, 01:52 PM
RE: Question about flood
(19-03-2015 11:35 AM)Chas Wrote:  I am pointing out that the logical inference is incorrect. You can't go from 'possible' to 'unique' - that is a logic error.

First off, I don't understand what you mean by "unique" in this context. Second, since we know that life, consciousness, human morality, and the universe began to exist...whatever gave these things their beginnings must be a moral agent, non-physical, conscious, full of life, and has the ability to create from nothing...and that being must also be necessary in its existence, due to the impossibility of infinite regress.

So all of the qualties that are NEEDED to create life, consciousness, morality,universe (LCMU), the Creator of these things must have, not lack. The Modal Ontological argument states that it is possible for such a being to exist, which it is.

(19-03-2015 11:35 AM)Chas Wrote:  Occam's Razor is a rule of thumb, not a law of logic.

It is a rule of thumb that rightfully applies. If only one cause is necessary, why go beyond what is necessary to explain the effect??
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: