Calling out sumydid

In another thread you implied that if the God of the bible came down and gouged out the eyes of all living babies, it would absolutely be for the best. Does this follow from some more general commitment, such as the idea that anything that the God of the bible does, whatever it may even in principle be, must be for the best?

If so, I would argue that either morality becomes a purely arbitrary affair; or God cannot reasonably be a moral exemplar. Which bullet do you want to bite?

I presume your God is supposed to be a moral exemplar of some sort, right? So, then, it is consistent to that extent for you to claim that God's actual actions are characteristically noble or virtuous or good, etc. It is also consistent for you to claim that there are some things God would never do, since they represent such depraved courses of action. That seems all fair enough. (Although, of course, the bible depicts God doing things that should raise red flags here.) But I fail to see how you can -- while maintaining both God's status as a moral exemplar and morality's status as non-arbitrary -- claim something like "And even if God did do [enter whatever depraved thing you want here], it would absolutely be for the best."

For example, we can consider your claim that even if God did come down and gouge out the eyes of all living babies, it would absolutely be for the best. In this case, either God would have good reasons for his display of baby eyeball gouging; or not.

If not, then according to your view, the good becomes essentially whatever God may happen to endorse without any constraints from outside reasons, which makes morality arbitrary.

If on the other hand God has good reasons for his baby eyeball gouging (which are obviously not apparent to us and radically so, since gouging out the eyes of all living babies just seems stupid and grossly depraved and all the ostensibly good reasons we see would recommend against doing it), then your God no longer functions reasonably as a moral exemplar. How could you expect Him to function as a moral exemplar if His grasp of practical reasons differs so radically from your own? Should you go around gouging out the eyes of other sentient beings around you? Well, on your view conjoined with the idea that God is an exemplar, it is rather tough to say, isn't it? If God were placed in your situation and started going around gouging out eyeballs, it seems it would all be for the best. On the other hand, if God were placed in your situation and refrained from going around gouging out eyeballs, it seems it too would all be for the best. Plus, your thinking you have good reasons one way or the other is significantly downplayed by the fact that the actual reasons one should be responsive toward (those that would be under God's attention) can differ so radically from the ones you naturally gravitate toward. Maybe if God educated us better about (or made our natural intuitions more aligned with) the actual good reasons why one should go around gouging out the eyeballs of infants; or sanctioning genocide like He does in the bible; or whatever else have you; then maybe He would deserve the title of moral teacher or exemplar. But failing that....

So, either morality is arbitrary; or God is not reasonably a moral exemplar. Again, which bullet will you bite?

Originally posted by LemonJello
In another thread you implied that if the God of the bible came down and gouged out the eyes of all living babies, it would absolutely be for the best. Does this follow from some more general commitment, such as the idea that anything that the God of the bible does, whatever it may even in principle be, must be for the best?

If so, I would argue that ...[text shortened]... arbitrary; or God is not reasonably a moral exemplar. Again, which bullet will you bite?

Are we going for a revisit to the Euthyphro dilemma?

Originally posted by LemonJello
In another thread you implied that if the God of the bible came down and gouged out the eyes of all living babies, it would absolutely be for the best. Does this follow from some more general commitment, such as the idea that anything that the God of the bible does, whatever it may even in principle be, must be for the best?

If so, I would argue that ...[text shortened]... arbitrary; or God is not reasonably a moral exemplar. Again, which bullet will you bite?

The slightest motion on sumy's or anyone else's part to either affirm any part of your op,(or deny it), will cause them to misunderstand "God".

I wonder if anyone can find "John Safran vs. God", the episode where he goes to a Zen monastary. (HE goes to check out all the religons despite being a jew himself.)
He is very funny but the Zen monastary episode is especially funny.

He's walking up the stairs to face the Zen master after having already been hit by him the previous few days for incorrectly answering a koan. He asks the camera man for advice who says perhaps he should just keep quiet.
Well, he avoided the stick with his "answer".
Neither affirm nor deny the existence of God, after all you dont do that with your kids (although a lot of people have been getting into some weird affirmations in this newer age)

What I told you was, by supposing that the God of the bible would do such a thing is fallacious because by pre-supposing that God of the bible exists, it negates the possibility that God would do such a thing to begin with; simply because the presupposition of His existence would also have to allow for His character to be that which is fully described in the bible.

Then to humor you and put some icing on the cake, I added as a completely secondary follow up, that "even IF" God were to do such a thing, by His very nature it would have to be for the greater good.

I stand by what I said. And I don't intend on adding anymore to it, as it's unnecessary.

Originally posted by sumydid
What I told you was, by supposing that the God of the bible would do such a thing is fallacious because by pre-supposing that God of the bible exists, it negates the possibility that God would do such a thing to begin with; simply because the presupposition of His existence would also have to allow for His character to be that which is fully described ...[text shortened]...

I stand by what I said. And I don't intend on adding anymore to it, as it's unnecessary.

".., that "even IF" God were to do such a thing, by His very nature it would have to be for the greater good."

I get what you're saying sumy, but I think I see a contradiction. The God of the Bible is Just. All His acts are righteous. So, therefore, God can only do that which is according to His nature, which excludes evil, and blinding children is evil.

I think it is an error to presuppose that because God is Just, and all His acts are righteous, that He is then also Just and righteous to do evil.

Does that make sense to you?

Originally posted by josephw
[b]".., that "even IF" God were to do such a thing, by His very nature it would have to be for the greater good."

I get what you're saying sumy, but I think I see a contradiction. The God of the Bible is Just. All His acts are righteous. So, therefore, God can only do that which is according to His nature, which excludes evil, and blinding children is ...[text shortened]... hteous, that He is then also Just and righteous to do evil.

Does that make sense to you?[/b]

I disagree.

I mean if we are going to entertain the fallacious, God could blind every child on the Earth and then turn it into something good.

With all the children blinded, let's just presuppose that thousdands, millions of people would gather and pray to God to please let their children see again.

And then, the next day, God could restore all the children's vision to 100%, and the end result is everyone would be reminded that nothing on Earth should be taken for granted, and we should be grateful to God for anything we have.

But such a hypothetical is silly. Mind you, it's no more silly than the hypothetical that a just God would ever do such a thing. But again, if we must entertain the idea for argument's sake... even IF He did it, He would not do so in an arbitrary or evil fashion. No.

Originally posted by LemonJello
In another thread you implied that if the God of the bible came down and gouged out the eyes of all living babies, it would absolutely be for the best. Does this follow from some more general commitment, such as the idea that anything that the God of the bible does, whatever it may even in principle be, must be for the best?

If so, I would argue that ...[text shortened]... arbitrary; or God is not reasonably a moral exemplar. Again, which bullet will you bite?

You are funny. 😀

Its always interesting how Christians, tend to pretend that they know everything about God and rather than admit ignorance, either refuse to address certain questions or tie themselves up in knots - or, as is often the case, both of the above.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Its always interesting how Christians, tend to pretend that they know everything about God and rather than admit ignorance, either refuse to address certain questions or tie themselves up in knots - or, as is often the case, both of the above.

If they used a bit more common sense, then they would prolly make a bigger impact on this forum.
As it stands, no one knows everything about God and anyone that says they do are either lying or deluded.
In fact anyone that knows ANYTHING about 'God' doesn't really say that much about It, because of "It's" (wholistic)nature

Originally posted by sumydid
What I told you was, by supposing that the God of the bible would do such a thing is fallacious because by pre-supposing that God of the bible exists, it negates the possibility that God would do such a thing to begin with; simply because the presupposition of His existence would also have to allow for His character to be that which is fully described ...[text shortened]...

I stand by what I said. And I don't intend on adding anymore to it, as it's unnecessary.

First, the post of Agerg's to which you initially responded had nothing, specifically, to do with Christianity or "the god of the bible". That was something you presumed to import into the discussion there. I don't know why you would do that, considering the context of his comment toward twhitehead; perhaps your view of theism is somewhat provincial or myopic? At any rate, if indeed Agerg's claim is fallacious, it is certainly not because of the objection you raised.

Second, yes I already know you went on to claim that if the god of the bible were to do such a thing, it would absolutely be for the best. The implications of this claim of yours is just what I am trying to address in this thread. Care to address any of my concerns there?

Third, you can stand by what you said if you want, but that seems like a pretty grotesque pair of claims. Your claims amount to (1) God would never perform X and (2) If God did perform X, it absolutely would be for the best. Well, if His performing X absolutely would be for the best, then what reasons could He have for never performing X? How does He expect to top that which absolutely would be for the best? How could He justify selectively shunning some course of action that He knows absolutely would be for the best? Does He not understand that His gouging out the eyes of all living babies absolutely would be for the best? What would prevent a perfectly good God from doing something that He knows absolutely would be for the best? If His doing X absolutely would be for the best, then how would X-ing clash with His putatively perfect nature? Are you sure these claims add up?

Originally posted by sumydid
What I told you was, by supposing that the God of the bible would do such a thing is fallacious because by pre-supposing that God of the bible exists, it negates the possibility that God would do such a thing to begin with; simply because the presupposition of His existence would also have to allow for His character to be that which is fully described ...[text shortened]...

I stand by what I said. And I don't intend on adding anymore to it, as it's unnecessary.

god killed the first borns of egypt. god killed jericho. god killed the servants of job whose only fault was that they were the servants of a good man and god had a bet with satan to see how much job can take. if we believe god of the bible exists as he is described , he is more than capable of doing some nasty stuff


i believe that he is not as described in some parts of the bible. i hope that. if not, we are kind of scrwd. it would mean god might make more bets with satans in the future.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
god killed the first borns of egypt. god killed jericho. god killed the servants of job whose only fault was that they were the servants of a good man and god had a bet with satan to see how much job can take. if we believe god of the bible exists as he is described , he is more than capable of doing some nasty stuff


i believe that he is not as describ ...[text shortened]... if not, we are kind of scrwd. it would mean god might make more bets with satans in the future.

Parts of the bible seem counterintuitive, like some weasel has been let loose to alter and omit parts to gain control of the planet.
They did a good job, a lot of people were fooled for a long time. Now that we have stopped killing people for "blasphemy", and other such nonsense, we can hopefully get this planet back on track.

Disinformation and misinformation were well understood by the powers that be. They knew about these things way before those words were even invented!

Originally posted by twhitehead
Its always interesting how Christians, tend to pretend that they know everything about God and rather than admit ignorance, either refuse to address certain questions or tie themselves up in knots - or, as is often the case, both of the above.

Tie themselves in a knot by saying stupid things like "atheists pretend to know everything about science"?

If it's been your observation that Christians pretend to know everything about God, then you haven't been listening. What we do say though, is that we know God and are known by Him because we have trusted in Christ. The Bible teaches us in no uncertain terms that those who hear, then believe, then trust in what Jesus did on the cross for us by shedding His blood for our sins, are saved and are made right before God.

Ephesians 5:14 - Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
god killed the first borns of egypt. god killed jericho. god killed the servants of job ....if we believe god of the bible exists as he is described

And we Christians do, don't we?

Zhalanzi said
...he is more than capable of doing some nasty stuff

Very true.

Zahlanzi said
i believe that he is not as described in some parts of the bible. i hope that.

I would expect that. However, if God is not as described in the bible, then Jesus Christ had no business citing excerpts from the bible time and time again, did He.

Fact is, Christians believe the bible as their Messiah Jesus, clearly did.

Zahlanzi said
if not, we are kind of scrwd.

The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom! Very good, bro.

Zahlanzi said
it would mean god might make more bets with satans in the future.

It's not a bet when One knows the outcome.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Care to address any of my concerns there?

I guess not. Just like he didn't care to address the dilemma I pointed out regarding his notion of the soul. Too bad, really. But, seriously, of course he doesn't have a coherent response to Euthyphro or the P.o.E.