|
Post by Occam's Spork on May 5, 2013 13:57:51 GMT 10
No, I am using logic to show that you absolutely messed up. Well, there's good logic, and faulty logic. Your use of faulty logic only shows a distortion.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on May 5, 2013 14:01:57 GMT 10
God most certainly commits Murder in the Bible. No. I've already explained this to you, Murder is the intentional killing of one human by another, for an unjustified reason. How does God qualify?
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on May 5, 2013 14:03:16 GMT 10
Oh, btw ... you seem to be confused about who is pursuing the "God commits murder line." I think that was another poster. Okay, granted. But while we are on the subject, am I to assume that you'd disagree with this poster? (Since your denial of moral absolutes ought to leave you amidst a mire of moral ambiguity.)
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on May 5, 2013 14:21:06 GMT 10
God most certainly commits Murder in the Bible. No. I've already explained this to you, Murder is the intentional killing of one human by another, for an unjustified reason. How does God qualify? God instructs man to kill. That IS Murder.
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on May 5, 2013 14:23:10 GMT 10
And remember, my comments are in reply to whats in the Bible which I believe to be rubbish. When I say God commits murder, it's only because that's what the Bible says. Like Earl, I don't actually believe that God commits murder because figments of one's imagination cannot commit murder.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on May 6, 2013 2:56:26 GMT 10
Like I keep telling you, there is only one point of difference between us. You dismiss every God except one, I dismiss all the Gods that you dismiss plus one more. And like I keep telling you, the issues of whether God exists, and which God exist, are two separate arguments. On the issue of whether God exists, I am only in conflict with atheists.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on May 6, 2013 2:57:27 GMT 10
No. I've already explained this to you, Murder is the intentional killing of one human by another, for an unjustified reason. How does God qualify? God instructs man to kill. That IS Murder. It's only murder if it's unjustified.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on May 6, 2013 3:13:23 GMT 10
On the hypothetical question of whether or not a "God" killing people is murder? It certainly is. I disagree. All murder involves killing, but not all killing is considered murder. Not really, since your premise is flawed at the onset. For one, I don't agree with your terms. a) God does not murder people, under the accepted traditional definition of murder. b) All people are already under the judgment of God. (Rom. 3:23) The wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23), so when God executes someone it is not murder, it is killing because it is a lawful taking of life. We've already earned death, we exist because of His grace and forgiveness. Secondly, You've fallen into your own logic trap. For a human being, with the incredible paucity of data we have about the universe, morality, reality, and complexity, to decide that God is less kind, less noble, less compassionate, less moral, less 'humane' than they, seems quite bizarre, in my opinion. You are suggesting that a cruel God somehow created a derivative, "smaller" creature (i.e., human) with a superior morality and better heart. --Have you read any Aristotle's thoughts on Causality? (*Sadistic smile*) -- You presume to judge God's morality and character on the basis of your own. Which in your own admission, is fundamentally flawed. The fact that you would even be capable of making moral statements would prove that God was a moral being. Even if you deny existence of God, To agree that a "mudball, with hair and teeth, red in tooth and fang can climb from the slime to some kind of superiority by wholesale application of 'survival of the fittest' (extinguishing and subjugating others) and transcends this history to the point of making authoritative statements about morality and character..Well that is well beyond my skeptical limits. The very fact that you believe that you can make moral judgments about the actions of others, presuppose a source that has at least as good, or better ethical standard, as your own.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on May 9, 2013 10:21:29 GMT 10
If your God is absolutely moral, then she/he cannot kill. Says who? Certainly not you, since your prior claim was there was no such thing as absolute morality. Secondly, I don't believe all killing is wrong. Certainly not for the author and creator of life. An artist has as much right to destroy a painting as they do to create one. If you are suggesting there is no such thing as absolute morality, then you have no right making absolute moral statements. If you make moral judgments, then we must agree there is a moral standard, and a source outside of ourselves responsible for this standard. Well since it can't be quantified, verified, and is based completely on abstract data... then it's a logical conclusion based on your subjective moral judgement. And interestingly enough, logic too is based on unchallenged priori assumptions that cannot be empirically proven. So you shoot yourself in the foot, again. Again, I challenge your definition of 'murder.' Murder is unjustified, killing isn't necessarily. You atheists love quoting the KJV, but the original Hebrew translates: 'Thou shalt not murder" All murder is killing, but not all killing is murder. No. The contention is "atheism versus theism." Atheism is the opposite of theism, not just the opposite of Christianity. Face ALL of your opponents, not just the particular ones you have no taste for. Not entirely. I agree there is a God they are trying to appeal to. They are just misguided in the search. All these religions have at least one truth that is universally agreed upon. The Idea that there is something greater beyond ourselves. I dismiss the specifics of Neptune, but I do believe in a God who controls the sea. That means you dismiss theism. --I don't.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on May 9, 2013 10:39:03 GMT 10
Then post your line of argumentation from premise to conclusion, and I'll point out the flawed logic in your line of reasoning. And we can discuss it.
The statement: "It's a logical conclusion" isn't a "win a free argument" card, and I won't allow you to use it as such.
Logic puzzles happen to be one of my favourate pastimes, so I really don't mind doing this.
(P.S. You might be trying to make a logical conclusion, but you are trying to sneak your moral opinion through the back door, hoping I won't notice.)
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on May 10, 2013 9:21:49 GMT 10
Entity A declares set of attributes and actions that exclusively define property B. Entity A has attributes and performs actions that do not match property B. Entity A does not possess property B. I challenge premise B, and thus premise C does not follow.. It is based on presumption, and thus circular. Who determines the attributes and actions of property B do not match entity A? And how was this determination based? And where did the agency of this standard originate? If it originates with Entity, the claim is self-referential by the Laws of Causality, and thus illogical. No effect can be greater than it's cause.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on May 10, 2013 9:49:58 GMT 10
Did you say immoral, Earl? (I thought you didn't make moral statements.) ;D I don't agree that He does commit immoral acts. Immoral acts imply that He was unjustified. --Can you prove that?
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on May 10, 2013 10:21:56 GMT 10
No, circular logic is a fallacy.
"Circular reasoning, is a logical fallacy in which "the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end up with".
You admitted your conclusions were circular. Therefore you admit to committing a logical fallacy, or error. Thus, your conclusions are illogical.
You've gone into MontyPython-ish accusations against God.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on May 10, 2013 10:40:21 GMT 10
No, because justification is not subjective. (One can only be guilty or innocent of an act, not both or neither.)
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on May 10, 2013 10:44:29 GMT 10
Also, I would note that a person is capable of being wrong in their moral judgments, that doesn't mean there isn't an absolute standard.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on May 11, 2013 21:19:11 GMT 10
Your claim P:God is moral q: Killing is universally immoral. Therefore God is not moral.
My claim:
p^~q
Negation is on the q. Statement q is false.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on May 11, 2013 21:53:58 GMT 10
Entity C is using property B, originating from entity A; to determine that entity A, doesn't possess property B.
THERE is your contradiction.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on May 11, 2013 22:21:01 GMT 10
Entity C begs the question. Entity C uses an ad hominem fallacy, while begging the question.
Entity A created the laws that would allow Entity C to call him a contradiction. Entity B cannot see contradictions that don't exist. Entity C settles for ignorance over logic and reason.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on May 11, 2013 23:11:56 GMT 10
"Entity C settles for ignorance over logic and reason."Hah hah! You made a typo. It ought to be : Entity B ;D ;D ;D It's no typo. I checked. Reason and logic owes it's existence to religion. Aristotle was a theist. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on May 13, 2013 3:06:54 GMT 10
Am I?
The Laws of Thought must be utilized and presupposed in Everything that you ponder, ruminate, speak and act. These Laws are immaterial, universal and immutable. The cosmos lacks these attributes thus can't ground them. God alone has these attributes to account for these Laws. God must exist.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on May 13, 2013 9:59:09 GMT 10
You're being dismissive now. That's not very reasonable, Earl.
|
|