The Logical Impossibility Conundrum
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-06-2015, 11:46 AM (This post was last modified: 22-06-2015 11:56 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The Logical Impossibility Conundrum
(22-06-2015 10:40 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Justice is a term, that implies something which is morally right and fair.

To you maybe.
Justice is a subjective "state of affairs" which corresponds to all sorts of learned pre-conceived notions.
There is no "objective state of justice" nor is it possible to "bring about" one, or "return one".

The absurd notion that a timeless (eternal) being CHANGED his opinions AFTER he "sent" (another temporal concept) his offspring, is meaningless. The entire notion of "salvation" was absent from Hebrew culture. It was cooked up to compete with Greek mystery cults.
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid160188

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
23-06-2015, 08:39 PM (This post was last modified: 23-06-2015 08:44 PM by Mirewood.)
RE: The Logical Impossibility Conundrum
(22-06-2015 06:13 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  No, it's not a red herring. Your entire argument about logical impossibility, requires objective morality to be true.

Perhaps you don't understand what the term means? A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue.

In the context of this discussion the Theist I spoke with agreed to a basic form of justice "True justice is fair and impartial. It respects people, and assigns awards and/or punishments based on what is merited." Since this does NOT deal with what is moral, but rather, what is considered a fair, impartial and equitable judgement - a conversation about morality is IRRELEVANT, and ONLY serves to distract from the conversation.

(22-06-2015 06:13 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Your entire argument attempts to define what these terms would mean, if they were "perfect"

The entire argument is about discussing these concepts (Justice) with a theist and ONCE you agree on a reasonable definition (which in the conversation I am referencing was "True justice is fair and impartial. It respects people, and assigns awards and/or punishments based on what is merited.") Then move forward with the argument.

(22-06-2015 06:13 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  "If you believe morality is subjective"

I Don't. I even alluded to the FACT that Virtue Ethics, Utilitariansim, etc. can provide Objective standards; but, also pointed out that this is irrelevent to the conversation.

(22-06-2015 06:13 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Are you saying there are objectively right and wrong answers to what is just or not?

Correct! Since the individual I was speaking with agreed to the notion that a Just system "assigns awards and/or punishments based on what is merited", All I am required to do is point out an instance where an individual in the bible is rewarded or punished by God despite not meriting it. if such an occurrence exists, the god in the bible does not conform to the standard of Justice that was both agreed upon, and is typically the standard definition you find in most internet searches.

I don't have to present and debate about an objective standard for why murder is wrong, if the conversation is "We recognize that justice is achieve when individuals are punished based on their actions... so if a judge allows a killer to escape punishment by allowing a scapegoat to take his/her place, it is OBJECTIVELY unjust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-11-2015, 05:40 AM
RE: The Logical Impossibility Conundrum
It appears that a similar argument applies to Islam as well.

The belief that Jesus is a prophet is required in Islam.

Although the prophets Noah, Adam and Moses appear more frequently. Islam teaches the rejection of the Trinitarian Christian view that Jesus was God incarnate or the son of God. The Quran says that Jesus himself never claimed to be the Son of God, and it furthermore indicates that Jesus will deny having ever claimed divinity at the Last Judgment, and God will vindicate him.

In Islam, Jesus was sent to guide the Children of Israel with a new revelation from Allah (the gospels). Muslims believe that this scripture is divinely inspired is one of Islam's fundamental tenets, but, since all scripture before the Qur'an is also held to have become corrupted, Muslims are directed to take guidance from the Quran alone.

Ironically, this creates a problem for the reliability of Islam. The Quran states that Allah's Word cannot be corrupted. Since the Torah, Psalms and Gospel are Also considered Allah's Word, they cannot be corrupted.

To Summarize:
1) None can change or corrupt the words of Allah.
2) Books such as the Torah and the Gospel are the words of Allah.
3) Therefore, none can change or corrupt the text of any of Allah’s Books such as the Torah and the Gospel.

Since the bible identifies Jesus as God's Son, but Muslims to not accept this notion, when trying to prove the Quran's reliability, Muslims reject the textual reliability of the Bible because it has been corrupted/misinterpreted by people. Which is impossible because Allah's word cannot be corrupted, which if true, means that the Quran is false, and in order to demonstrate that the Quran is true, Muslims reject the textual reliability of the bible because it has been corrupted/misinterpreted by people. Which is impossible because Allah's word cannot be corrupted.....

This is an example of a paradox/logical impossibility. Because Islam dictates that the gospel is simultaneously:
A) The incorruptible word of Allah,
B) Corrupted by fallible humans.

This is a paradox/logical impossibility: the religion contradicts itself. If your religious beliefs hinge on a paradox, they cannot be true and are demonstrably false because they are logically impossible.



~Evil_monster Suck it stogie5 Evil_monster~
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: