1. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    17 Apr '10 20:576 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.
  2. Territories Unknown
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    17 Apr '10 21:40
    Originally posted by Agerg
    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]
    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.
  3. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    17 Apr '10 21:472 edits
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    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.
    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?
  4. Territories Unknown
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    17 Apr '10 21:53
    Originally posted by Agerg
    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?
    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.
  5. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    17 Apr '10 22:09
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    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.
    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.

    🙂
  6. Territories Unknown
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    17 Apr '10 22:14
    Originally posted by Agerg
    [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]
    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.
  7. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    17 Apr '10 22:235 edits
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    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.
    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 which underpins

    "X is creator of the universe, therefore X is Righteous, and morally perfect"

    for any X.
  8. Territories Unknown
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    17 Apr '10 22:32
    Originally posted by Agerg
    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]
    Hate to say it, but the creator is always infallible.
  9. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    17 Apr '10 22:474 edits
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    Hate to say it, but the creator is always infallible.
    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 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.)
  10. Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9651
    18 Apr '10 01:191 edit
    Originally posted by Agerg
    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]
    "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.
  11. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    18 Apr '10 01:352 edits
    Originally posted by josephw
    [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]
    Just look at the universe. Could any being that wasn't "Good" have created it?
    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.
  12. Territories Unknown
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    18 Apr '10 02:10
    Originally posted by Agerg
    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.)
    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.
  13. Donationbbarr
    Chief Justice
    Center of Contention
    Joined
    14 Jun '02
    Moves
    17381
    18 Apr '10 02:231 edit
    Originally posted by Agerg
    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]
    None 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).
  14. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    18 Apr '10 04:015 edits
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    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.
    But your response to

    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).
  15. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    18 Apr '10 04:11
    Originally posted by bbarr
    None 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 ...[text shortened]... hey may apply as metaphors or as terms that function to elicit some response in others).
    We all have an innate sens of what is "good". Treating other the way you want to be treated is "good" just as Christ explained. So where does this morality come from I wonder? It must be from God if he exists. So any "good" we do comes from this innate sense of "goodness" put there by our Maker. In short, such goodness does not originate from us so why should we be called "good"? Only God is good and we are free to participate in such goodness.
Back to Top