17 Apr 10
6 edits
Before reaching for your holy book, assume I'm talking about someone elses 'false' god that you don't actually believe in.
Even if their belief is also sponsored by a "holy book", and it says their [false] God is holy and virtuous, cannot lie, etc... what prevents you from supposing that their god might be nothing like what their scriptures say and might instead be a nasty piece of work you wouldn't want to believe in?
In other words, what is it about the statement "X created the universe" which compels X to be all you would consider virtuous and more? Why does the supposition this might not be true fail to be valid?
Remember, you don't have faith in these false gods and your own holy book has little bearing on theirs.
17 Apr 10
Originally posted by AgergUm, if their god(s) are nothing like what their scriptures describe, what's the point, exactly?
Before reaching for your holy book, assume I'm talking about someone elses [b]'false' god that you don't actually believe in.
Even if their belief is also sponsored by a "holy book", and it says their [false] God is holy and virtuous, cannot lie, etc... what prevents you from supposing that their god might be nothing like what their scriptures say and ...[text shortened]... faith in these false gods and your own holy book has little bearing on theirs.[/b]
I think one more puff would have cleared your mind--- or at least distracted you enough to forget this half-baked idea.
17 Apr 10
2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHFrom your perspective there would of course be no point (at least one reason you wouldn't have faith). From their perspective your assumption might seem laughable.
Um, if their god(s) are nothing like what their scriptures describe, what's the point, exactly?
I think one more puff would have cleared your mind--- or at least distracted you enough to forget this half-baked idea.
Why, for the sake of argument, are you not allowed to make the assumption their 'creator of the universe' is not all as is claimed?
17 Apr 10
Originally posted by AgergSorry, but I find it difficult to follow so many double negatives. Let's make it simple for my wee mind, and say we're talking about the God described in the Bible.
From your perspective there would of course be no point (at least one reason you wouldn't have faith). From their perspective your assumption might seem laughable.
Why, for the sake of argument, are you not allowed to make the assumption their 'creator of the universe' is not all as is claimed?
17 Apr 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSorry, but I find it difficult to follow so many double negatives. Let's make it simple for my wee mind, and say we're talking about the God described in the Bible.
Sorry, but I find it difficult to follow so many double negatives. Let's make it simple for my wee mind, and say we're talking about the God described in the Bible.
At least no one can say you're inconsistent
Thanks, as always, for your well considered posts.
🙂
17 Apr 10
Originally posted by AgergI'm not being facetious; I'm actually trying to follow your premise. Sarcasm (although I am typically the first in line) was not intended in my entreaty to use Christianity as the object lesson.
[b]Sorry, but I find it difficult to follow so many double negatives. Let's make it simple for my wee mind, and say we're talking about the God described in the Bible.
At least no one can say you're inconsistent
Thanks, as always, for your well considered posts.
🙂[/b]
17 Apr 10
5 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThere would be no point grounding this question on an entity you believe to exist, because with that belief comes a collection of 'unquestionable truths' which would moot (from your perspective) any argument of mine.
I'm not being facetious; I'm actually trying to follow your premise. Sarcasm (although I am typically the first in line) was not intended in my entreaty to use Christianity as the object lesson.
The reason I want to take any arbitrary 'creator of the universe', excluding the god you believe in, is to understand the infallible logic which underpins
"X is creator of the universe, therefore X is Righteous, and morally perfect"
for any X.
17 Apr 10
Originally posted by AgergHate to say it, but the creator is always infallible.
There would be no point grounding this question on an entity you believe to exist, because with that belief comes a collection of 'unquestionable truths' which would moot (from your perspective) any argument of mine.
The reason I want to take any arbitrary 'creator of the universe', excluding the god you believe in, is to understand the infallible logic whi ...[text shortened]... eator of the universe, [b]therefore X is Righteous, and morally perfect"
for any X.[/b]
17 Apr 10
4 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHBut you're not helping me to understand why. Suppose I choose X to be an entity which is
Hate to say it, but the creator is always infallible.
- purported to be creator of the universe and humans; yet secretly (ie, no statement about this is made in the holy book of X) likes to set aside, arbitrarily, a collection of these humans in some spiritual realm for the sole purpose of torturing them. It does this for no reason other than its own amusement. Furthermore, in all cases it will fail to honour any promises of eternal life in heaven.
Why is it the case that for this particular choice of X, X is infallible? (and I suppose it makes sense to ask what would be your own defintion of 'infallible' on this matter.)
18 Apr 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Agerg"In other words, what is it about the statement "X created the universe" which compels X to be all you would consider virtuous and more?"
Before reaching for your holy book, assume I'm talking about someone elses [b]'false' god that you don't actually believe in.
Even if their belief is also sponsored by a "holy book", and it says their [false] God is holy and virtuous, cannot lie, etc... what prevents you from supposing that their god might be nothing like what their scriptures say and faith in these false gods and your own holy book has little bearing on theirs.[/b]
Just look at the universe. Could any being that wasn't "Good" have created it?
"Why does the supposition this might not be true fail to be valid?"
Because only a "twisted sadistic fiend" would suggest that God was anything other than Good. Someone like Satan for example.
18 Apr 10
2 edits
Originally posted by josephwJust look at the universe. Could any being that wasn't "Good" have created it?
[b]"In other words, what is it about the statement "X created the universe" which compels X to be all you would consider virtuous and more?"
Just look at the universe. Could any being that wasn't "Good" have created it?
"Why does the supposition this might not be true fail to be valid?"
Because only a "twisted sadistic fiend" would suggest that God was anything other than Good. Someone like Satan for example.[/b]
I don't see why not...consider the entity proposed two posts above (in my response to FreakyKBH)
Because only a "twisted sadistic fiend" would suggest that God was anything other than Good. Someone like Satan for example
Not sure why this is relevant; as stated in the OP, you may assume I'm not referencing 'your God'.
In fact I went out of my way to make this point abundently clear.
18 Apr 10
Originally posted by AgergI guess this is why I showed incredulity on the onset. The Bizarro world you are suggesting ceases to make sense from the very beginning. This supposedly self-sufficient God creates others only to gain some jollies out of torturing them.
But you're not helping me to understand why. Suppose I choose X to be an entity which is
- purported to be creator of the universe and humans; yet secretly (ie, no statement about this is made in the holy book of X) likes to set aside, arbitrarily, a collection of these humans in some spiritual realm for the sole purpose of torturing them. It does this for ...[text shortened]... ppose it makes sense to ask what would be your own defintion of 'infallible' on this matter.)
What an expletive deleted that God would be; what a picture of contradiction.
18 Apr 10
1 edit
Originally posted by AgergNone of my religious friends infer from "God is the creator" to "God is good". They do tend to infer from "God is the creator" to "God has the right to do as he pleases", but that is a substantially different claim. The latter inference, while it entails that God cannot violate an obligation (since nothing obliges him), is compatible with God failing to meet whatever standards we take to be definitive of goodness. Some will retort that these standards, our standards, cannot properly apply to God. But, if that is right, it still does not follow that God is good. Rather, it entails that our moral or evaluative concepts simply do not apply to God as descriptions (though they may apply as metaphors or as terms that function to elicit some response in others).
Before reaching for your holy book, assume I'm talking about someone elses [b]'false' god that you don't actually believe in.
Even if their belief is also sponsored by a "holy book", and it says their [false] God is holy and virtuous, cannot lie, etc... what prevents you from supposing that their god might be nothing like what their scriptures say and faith in these false gods and your own holy book has little bearing on theirs.[/b]
18 Apr 10
5 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHBut your response to
I guess this is why I showed incredulity on the onset. The Bizarro world you are suggesting ceases to make sense from the very beginning. This supposedly self-sufficient God creates others only to gain some jollies out of torturing them.
What an expletive deleted that God would be; what a picture of contradiction.
The reason I want to take any arbitrary 'creator of the universe', excluding the god you believe in, is to understand the infallible logic which underpins
"X is creator of the universe, therefore X is Righteous, and morally perfect"
for any X.
being
Hate to say it, but the creator is always infallible
applies to all X regardless of the choice one makes. You shouldn't, logically, have a problem with mine (since their is no logical contradiction with assuming that particular X may hypothetically be some creator of the universe, and behaves as described). That is unless, you weren't giving an honest/accurate answer. (Truth be told, I suspected you weren't).