"God's Mysterious Ways"= Lame Excuse
Offline In the issue of healings and miracles, many non believers raise a philosophical point, which I feel is very valid, however theists are very quick to brush it off with, "God's ways are higher, above us and we can't and shouldn't try to second guess him". This is usually in response to asking why a little old lady who takes a bath in a certain body of water gets healed of cancer when thousands, equally or perhaps even better deserving, continue to die? OK, let's give theists this one. Let's say God, who is infinite can look down through time into the future and see all possible life scenarios and has some greater reason for the little old lady than the thousands who succumbed. Maybe the little old lady inspired some kid to get saved and that kid became a pastor and led thousands more to salvation. Whatever.
Yet what of these pastor pedophiles like the one I mentioned, Dr. Bob Gray? His ministry went back to the late 40's and some have alledged that his pedophile practices did as well, although most of the complaints that were formally brought up dated in the 70's. He was said to have a full crowd walking the aisle at Invitation every Sunday and preached many revivals. Now, OK, here again, Christians can run to scripture and quote Matthew about the "Not everyone who does X will get into Heaven.." but what does this say about God's morality? God is supposed to be the author of objective morality, why would he use a pedophile to lead souls to Christ in the first place? Does the number of souls saved outweigh the damage he did when he was molesting children in his office?Is God going to use this incident for some greater purpose, and if so, what could it possibly be? If so, was it really necessary to allow these crimes to go on so long and why were his crimes allowed to be covered up for so long? What purpose was there is having Gray escape justice when church members began to complain by sending him out of the country? Where was God when these kids were being molested?Let's say for the sake of argument that Gray and TBC were false prophets from the start, fine, but here again,TBC had and still does have a great reputation of being "doctrinally sound" and "being first and foremost in winning souls for Christ", if they're false peophets, what does that say about other fundamentalist churches that are equally outspoken and claim sound doctrine?
Finally, do you Christians really find it satisfying to hear such questions answered with, "God's ways are mysterious, we'll all know in time,?" I wonder if Gray's victims do, but I won't know that because they're not talking to media. Niether is TBC.
"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings."
- Login to post comments
Offline Beyond Saving wrote:So if god does something that us mere mortals would consider not good, is that proof that the being is not god, or are we wrong about what is good?It could go either way.
Quote:If you believe that a being created the universe, our world and all life on it, how is it necessary that the being is good?It is not the creation of the universe whence God has perfect goodness; in fact, the creation of the universe is a contingent attribute of God, given that there are possible worlds where God exists but creates no universes. So your question is malformed and trades upon your misunderstanding.
Quote:Or are you saying that being simply gets to decide what is good because it created?I'm saying that God is perfectly good because God is defined as a maximally great being, and goodness is a great-making attribute; nowhere in this is it implied that God gets to decide what is good and what isn't. In fact, it couldn't be that God just decides what is good--since goodness itself would have to be intrinsic to God's nature--anymore than God could decide exactly how much knowledge constitutes omnipotence.
Did you answer any of my questions in that mess? The central question is how do you know god is good? If it is just because the word "god" necessarily means good by your definition, then if it turns out that a being created the universe, us, everything- but is not good, then is that being not god?
You are saying god is good because god must be good by definition. Why? How do you know? And are you saying that a being that has all of the powers typically associated with the term god but is not good then by definition that being is something other than a god?
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
- Login to post comments
Offline Most if not all of the Greek gods do not have an inherent 'perfect goodness' (plenty of people believed in them, in addition). I think this will be easier if you defined what 'perfect goodness' is, since you are the one claiming your God has it.
Now you are confusing ontological categories. There's "god" in reference to a category of being, and then there's "God" which is a definite description. To the extent that "God" is a definite description, the term is virtually univocal throughout academia; the term bespeaks of an omnipotent, omniscient, perfect good being. You are talking about Greek gods, which have absolutely nothing to do with "God" concepts insofar as we are speaking of a definite description.
So are you conceding that when speaking of God as a definite description, to a particular being and not to an ontological category of being, that it is generally agreed that perfect goodness is included amongst its attributes? Or perhaps you are unfamiliar with the distinction I'm making, in which case I'll happily educate you on the topic--this, however, would require you to admit that you are ignorant, and most internet atheists are reticent to do so.
This seems awfully evasive. You haven't seems to answered my questions. How have you determined what is 'great' and 'not great'. What is 'good' and 'not good'.
It's not evasive. I'm giving you intuitively satisfying measures of goodness over badness, not in the moral sense but in a general sense; evidently, you are rejecting them because they are not suiting your argument, which is fine by me. In any case, now you are bringing up epistemological issues with respect to how we know what's great-making as opposed to not, whereas I'm simply stating that God, without consideration to our knowledge of the specifics, has such properties.
What are the features or qualities of your God? I'm not familiar with the views of most modern apologetics, please specify some of the things your God concept 'is'.
I'll do that as soon as you acknowledge the univocality of my God concept (i.e., "maximally great being" ) across academia, which you can easily research on any apologetic web site, and as such stop referring to it as "my" God concept. (And actually, I do state the attributes in my replies to Beyond Saving.) For if I was to permit this, then it would be a subtle acceptance of your tacit assertion that "God" is a nebulous, labyrinthine notion that the majority of people are confused about, which is only going to help whatever fallacious arguments you are prepared to make. And I'm not going to play that game.
We still haven't established what you are talking about when you say 'great-making' qualities, or even when you say 'perfect goodness'.
.. which has no bearing on the fact that you've already asserted a contradiction inherent in at least one of the purported omni-attributes of God. But anyway, intellect and power are great-making attributes; perfect goodness is the inability to do something that's morally wrong.
As far as what I am talking about, one example is if one were to say a God was 'perfectly merciful' than that diametrically opposes the notion of ANY form of punishment, either in this life or some unproven afterlife. This is also opposed to a 'perfectly just' God, as mercy is defined as the suspension of justice, and punishment.
Well you'd have to delineate what you mean by "perfectly merciful" and "perfectly just," because chances are that you conceal your own confusions about such ideas.
Do you have anything else?
- Login to post comments
Offline Did you answer any of my questions in that mess?
Can you read above a 5th grade level?
The central question is how do you know god is good?
I told you:
God is perfectly good because God is defined as a maximally great being, and goodness is a great-making attribute
If it is just because the word "god" necessarily means good by your definition, then if it turns out that a being created the universe, us, everything- but is not good, then is that being not god?
Correct-amundo. That being would not be God.
You are saying god is good because god must be good by definition. Why? How do you know?
I'm saying that when I say "God," I mean an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good being.
I know what i mean when I say that because I have a brain state such that it allows me to know what I mean when I use certain words.
And are you saying that a being that has all of the powers typically associated with the term god but is not good then by definition that being is something other than a god?
Correct-amundo.
- Login to post comments
Offline Quote:You are saying god is good because god must be good by definition. Why? How do you know?I'm saying that when I say "God," I mean an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good being.
I know what i mean when I say that because I have a brain state such that it allows me to know what I mean when I use certain words.
Quote:And are you saying that a being that has all of the powers typically associated with the term god but is not good then by definition that being is something other than a god?Correct-amundo.
Well, that makes it easy. Obviously, by your definition there is no god since our world clearly is not perfectly good.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
- Login to post comments
Offline Well, that makes it easy. Obviously, by your definition there is no god since our world clearly is not perfectly good.
"Perfectly good" means that the inability to do that which is morally wrong. So obviously, the world can't be perfectly good because the world is not a sentient being.
Of course, you are probably just unfamiliar with the terminology being used, and what you really mean is that since the world is not completely good (in a non-moral sense), then there could not be a perfectly, morally good being that created it. But this assumes that such a being has a moral obligation to make everything so as to possess a specific measure of (non-moral) goodness, and that is just an assertion and from your standpoint is completely untenable. If the sole basis to your claim is your own moral intuition, then you basically have no leg to stand on, since as an atheist your morals are subjective and most likely enculturated.
- Login to post comments
Offline I'm saying that when I say "God," I mean an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good being.
I don't particularly care what your definition of perfectly good is, there is no being with that attribute. There is no perfectly good, all powerful, all knowing being. Doesn't exist. Can't exist. No evidence for existence. The ontological argument is a crock.
A maximally great being can not be imagined or envisioned by you or I. If we were to bother attempting to define said being, explain said being, or just agree on the attributes of said being, trust me, we could not agree.
Besides, my Pink Unicorn God is better than your old god, because my PUG is perfectly beautiful as well as omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good - and yours is not.
So there.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
- Login to post comments
Offline bismilah wrote:I'm saying that when I say "God," I mean an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good being.
I don't particularly care what your definition of perfectly good is, there is no being with that attribute. There is no perfectly good, all powerful, all knowing being. Doesn't exist. Can't exist. No evidence for existence. The ontological argument is a crock.
A maximally great being can not be imagined or envisioned by you or I. If we were to bother attempting to define said being, explain said being, or just agree on the attributes of said being, trust me, we could not agree.
Besides, my Pink Unicorn God is better than your old god, because my PUG is perfectly beautiful as well as omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good - and yours is not.
So there.
Can I shove my large penis up your dryed-out, 60+ year old cunt?
- Login to post comments
Offline ThunderJones wrote:Most if not all of the Greek gods do not have an inherent 'perfect goodness' (plenty of people believed in them, in addition). I think this will be easier if you defined what 'perfect goodness' is, since you are the one claiming your God has it.Now you are confusing ontological categories. There's "god" in reference to a category of being, and then there's "God" which is a definite description. To the extent that "God" is a definite description, the term is virtually univocal throughout academia;
As a definite description God merely refers to a single deity. Some of the things you attribute to it are common, but there is hardly a complete agreement on the specifics of God as a concept.
the term bespeaks of an omnipotent, omniscient, perfect good being. You are talking about Greek gods, which have absolutely nothing to do with "God" concepts insofar as we are speaking of a definite description.
As it is most commonly attributed, when you use the term this way it is commonly includes omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence.
So are you conceding that when speaking of God as a definite description, to a particular being and not to an ontological category of being, that it is generally agreed that perfect goodness is included amongst its attributes? Or perhaps you are unfamiliar with the distinction I'm making, in which case I'll happily educate you on the topic--this, however,
Sure.
would require you to admit that you are ignorant, and most internet atheists are reticent to do so.
I have no problems admitting when I am wrong, however, your tone does not bode well for further discussion. You are equating myself with 'most internet atheists', as well as asserting that 'most internet atheists' resist admitting ignorance (although you may just believe they are ignorant, and they don't agree). I could, but noticeably have not, say the same thing of 'most internet theists'.
Quote:This seems awfully evasive. You haven't seems to answered my questions. How have you determined what is 'great' and 'not great'. What is 'good' and 'not good'.It's not evasive. I'm giving you intuitively satisfying measures of goodness over badness, not in the moral sense but in a general sense; evidently, you are rejecting them because they are not suiting your argument, which is fine by me.
It is not evident that I am rejecting them just because they do not suit my argument. I asked you what 'great-making' qualities of your God were, and instead you gave me several subjective situations that don't demonstrate inherent 'greatness' or 'goodness' in the outcome you seem to prefer. Drinking cyanide, for example, is subjectively preferable in most situations, however, it is not inherently 'greater' than drinking water. It is a different act with different results in different contexts. Drinking cyanide would be vastly 'greater' to drinking water if the objective is commit suicide.
In any case, now you are bringing up epistemological issues with respect to how we know what's great-making as opposed to not, whereas I'm simply stating that God, without consideration to our knowledge of the specifics, has such properties.
Again with this 'great-making' phrase. I'd wish you would define exactly what you are talking about here. There is also the issue that you have not demonstrated God even exists, let alone that he has any properties you have asserted.
Quote:What are the features or qualities of your God? I'm not familiar with the views of most modern apologetics, please specify some of the things your God concept 'is'.I'll do that as soon as you acknowledge the univocality of my God concept (i.e., "maximally great being"
across academia, which you can easily research on any apologetic web site, and as such stop referring to it as "my" God concept.
Whatever you want to call it, I want to know more specific features of the God you believe in, for the purposes of this discussion. As far as God being defined as omnipotent, yes, that is a extremely common trait.
For if I was to permit this, then it would be a subtle acceptance of your tacit assertion that "God" is a nebulous, labyrinthine notion that the majority of people are confused about, which is only going to help whatever fallacious arguments you are prepared to make. And I'm not going to play that game.
Even if the God concept you adhere to has a few common traits with the majority of other God concepts, in the specifics, there is complete and utter contradiction and opposition of the various God concepts in many ways. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are saying here, but God IS a nebulous notion, that is defined as many ways are there are believers. Now if you are talking about a SPECIFIC God concept and you assert that THAT SPECIFIC ONE is well-defined, than that is different. After that, you need to actually well-define your God.
Quote:We still haven't established what you are talking about when you say 'great-making' qualities, or even when you say 'perfect goodness'... which has no bearing on the fact that you've already asserted a contradiction inherent in at least one of the purported omni-attributes of God. But anyway, intellect and power are great-making attributes; perfect goodness is the inability to (do?) something that's morally wrong.
Here I need a more specific definition of God. Is this the Abrahamic God? If so, than the attribute of 'perfect goodness' is demonstratably absent.
Quote:As far as what I am talking about, one example is if one were to say a God was 'perfectly merciful' than that diametrically opposes the notion of ANY form of punishment, either in this life or some unproven afterlife. This is also opposed to a 'perfectly just' God, as mercy is defined as the suspension of justice, and punishment.Well you'd have to delineate what you mean by "perfectly merciful" and "perfectly just," because chances are that you conceal your own confusions about such ideas.
Do you have anything else?
As I understand this common claim, 'just' in this context means a more retributive justice. A punishment or response to acts committed.
Perfectly merciful would describe a being that shows benevolence, forgiveness, and the suspension of punishment in ALL cases. This attribute, like omnibenevolence, is incompatible with any concept of Hell.
Perfectly just would describe a being that show complete and total fairness. There should NEVER be a situation where the punishment is considered morally incorrect or undeserved.
These two attributes are at complete odds, and mercy is the suspension of total or complete justice, as a softening (or eliminating) of punishment.
This is not going to go anywhere fast until you define more clearly the God concept you believe in.
Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker
- Login to post comments
Offline cj wrote:bismilah wrote:I'm saying that when I say "God," I mean an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good being.
I don't particularly care what your definition of perfectly good is, there is no being with that attribute. There is no perfectly good, all powerful, all knowing being. Doesn't exist. Can't exist. No evidence for existence. The ontological argument is a crock.
A maximally great being can not be imagined or envisioned by you or I. If we were to bother attempting to define said being, explain said being, or just agree on the attributes of said being, trust me, we could not agree.
Besides, my Pink Unicorn God is better than your old god, because my PUG is perfectly beautiful as well as omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good - and yours is not.
So there.
Can I shove my large penis up your dryed-out, 60+ year old cunt?
No.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
- Login to post comments
Offline cj wrote:bismilah wrote:I'm saying that when I say "God," I mean an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good being.
I don't particularly care what your definition of perfectly good is, there is no being with that attribute. There is no perfectly good, all powerful, all knowing being. Doesn't exist. Can't exist. No evidence for existence. The ontological argument is a crock.
A maximally great being can not be imagined or envisioned by you or I. If we were to bother attempting to define said being, explain said being, or just agree on the attributes of said being, trust me, we could not agree.
Besides, my Pink Unicorn God is better than your old god, because my PUG is perfectly beautiful as well as omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good - and yours is not.
So there.
Can I shove my large penis up your dryed-out, 60+ year old cunt?
Well, I guess this civil discussion has gone out the window. You almost seemed reasonable there for a minute.
Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker
- Login to post comments
Offline Beyond Saving wrote:Well, that makes it easy. Obviously, by your definition there is no god since our world clearly is not perfectly good.
If the sole basis to your claim is your own moral intuition, then you basically have no leg to stand on, since as an atheist your morals are subjective and most likely enculturated.
This is funny. You act as though religious 'morals' (if they can be called that) are absolute. And yet, religions will die out if they don't evolve their morality to keep up with the rest of the world. Which is why Christians now no longer take part in slavery, which is clearly endorsed in the Bible.
Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker
- Login to post comments
Offline As a definite description God merely refers to a single deity. Some of the things you attribute to it are common, but there is hardly a complete agreement on the specifics of God as a concept.
What is your yardstick for "complete agreement"? For example, can you point me to some philosophers who believe that God is omnipotent and perfectly good, but not omniscient?
It is not evident that I am rejecting them just because they do not suit my argument. I asked you what 'great-making' qualities of your God were, and instead you gave me several subjective situations that don't demonstrate inherent 'greatness' or 'goodness' in the outcome you seem to prefer.
So it's subjectively better to drink water than it is to drink cyanide when you're thirsty?
It's subjectively better to buy child pornography than it is to purchase the Economist?
It's subjectively better to purchase a 1994 IBM PS/1 for $20,000 than it is to purchase a Macbook Air for $1,000?
LOL. Okay.
The point is, we should be able to a agree that certain attributes are better than others. Obviously, the above situations speak to something deeper than just material entities; but the point is that there are certain things which are better to have than to lack.
Again with this 'great-making' phrase. I'd wish you would define exactly what you are talking about here.
An attribute a is great-making if and only if it is better for some being x to have a than to lack a; that is, x, by virtue of having a, has an additional perfection without which x would be qualitatively deficient. That is as rigorous as a definition as I can give; if you still don't get it, then read Anselm and Plantinga. I can't explain it any better.
There is also the issue that you have not demonstrated God even exists
That's a red herring. You are changing the subject.
let alone that he has any properties you have asserted.
I already told you; God is a maximally great being by definition. Therefore, he must possess every great-making attribute, whatever those attributes may be.
Whatever you want to call it, I want to know more specific features of the God you believe in, for the purposes of this discussion.
Omnipotence, omnniscience, perfect goodness, eternity, immateriality.
As far as God being defined as omnipotent, yes, that is a extremely common trait.
If by "common," you mean that pretty much every metaphysician in history has affirmed it.
Even if the God concept you adhere to has a few common traits with the majority of other God concepts, in the specifics, there is complete and utter contradiction and opposition of the various God concepts in many ways.[ Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are saying here, but God IS a nebulous notion, that is defined as many ways are there are believers.
Again, you have not shown that to be the case.
Can you name me one philosopher in history who, say, claimed that God has omniscience and perfect goodness, but not omnipotence? Or perhaps can you name me a philosopher who has claimed that God possesses all of the above attributes except immateriality?
Now if you are talking about a SPECIFIC God concept and you assert that THAT SPECIFIC ONE is well-defined
Uh, "God" qua definite description is a specific concept.
Here I need a more specific definition of God. Is this the Abrahamic God? If so, than the attribute of 'perfect goodness' is demonstratably absent.
I've given you a specific definition of God: omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, perfectly good, and immaterial.
Now you are getting into which religion accurately represents this omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, perfectly good, immaterial being's revelation to humanity, which has nothing to do with having a different concept of God. The concept of God is the same; they differ only in the accidentals.
Perfectly merciful would describe a being that shows benevolence, forgiveness, and the suspension of punishment in ALL cases.
Well then God is not perfectly merciful, and I've not read a single Christian apologist who believes in a perfectly merciful God according to your definition of "perfectly merciful." In fact, I would define "perfectly merciful" as showing mercy in a manner consistent with perfect goodness.
Perfectly just would describe a being that show complete and total fairness. There should NEVER be a situation where the punishment is considered morally incorrect or undeserved.
There isn't.
This is not going to go anywhere fast until you define more clearly the God concept you believe in.
I have defined it clearly. But because you are uneducated, you just don't understand the answers I'm trying to give you.
- Login to post comments
Offline But because you are uneducated, you just don't understand the answers I'm trying to give you.
I guess anyone who disagrees with you is instantly uneducated?
lol. I would respond to your whole post, but when I finished refuting it, you'd probably just request intercourse with me. (No in advance, by the way).
Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker
- Login to post comments
Offline bismilah wrote:But because you are uneducated, you just don't understand the answers I'm trying to give you.
I guess anyone who disagrees with you is instantly uneducated?
lol. I would respond to your whole post, but when I finished refuting it, you'd probably just request intercourse with me. (No in advance, by the way).
What if I just offered to put my cock up your ass?
Technically, that's not intercourse.
- Login to post comments
Offline ThunderJones wrote:bismilah wrote:But because you are uneducated, you just don't understand the answers I'm trying to give you.
I guess anyone who disagrees with you is instantly uneducated?
lol. I would respond to your whole post, but when I finished refuting it, you'd probably just request intercourse with me. (No in advance, by the way).
What if I just offered to put my cock up your ass?
Technically, that's not intercourse.
Wow, it's like you are five years old or something. People are seeing past your little game of lets-pretend-to-be-rational-people and you are throwing a fit.
Typical Theistard behavior. You do more for the atheist cause than a lot of atheists. Thanks.
Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker
- Login to post comments
Offline bismilah wrote:ThunderJones wrote:bismilah wrote:But because you are uneducated, you just don't understand the answers I'm trying to give you.
I guess anyone who disagrees with you is instantly uneducated?
lol. I would respond to your whole post, but when I finished refuting it, you'd probably just request intercourse with me. (No in advance, by the way).
What if I just offered to put my cock up your ass?
Technically, that's not intercourse.
Wow, it's like you are five years old or something. People are seeing past your little game of lets-pretend-to-be-rational-people and you are throwing a fit.
Typical Theistard behavior. You do more for the atheist cause than a lot of atheists. Thanks.
I love you. I just want to bite real hard on your nipples. If you ever have a baby and start breast feeding, I want to suck the milk out of you and make my bones nice and strong.
- Login to post comments
Offline Sorry, I don't swing that way. I'm not sure how male pregnancy would work, anyways.
Edit: Actually, hopefully Sapient can clean up Marty's threads that are getting polluted. The actual discussion is more interesting than some troll.
Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker
- Login to post comments
Offline This guy reminds me of Mr. Metaphysical 
He's a troll that has done his rounds here before.
- Login to post comments
Offline This guy reminds me of Mr. Metaphysical
Yeah Ktulu, I am getting a real familiar feeling with this troll. I remember Mr. Metaphysics and a couple of others that all seem to be the same person. Oh well, someone out there must not have any life.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
- Login to post comments
Offline Didn't have enough patience to continue their little game for very long, did they? Only took 10 posts before they broke down. Although that might've been because CJ firmly disagreed with one of their posts.
Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker
- Login to post comments
Offline cj wrote:bismilah wrote:I'm saying that when I say "God," I mean an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good being.
I don't particularly care what your definition of perfectly good is, there is no being with that attribute. There is no perfectly good, all powerful, all knowing being. Doesn't exist. Can't exist. No evidence for existence. The ontological argument is a crock.
A maximally great being can not be imagined or envisioned by you or I. If we were to bother attempting to define said being, explain said being, or just agree on the attributes of said being, trust me, we could not agree.
Besides, my Pink Unicorn God is better than your old god, because my PUG is perfectly beautiful as well as omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good - and yours is not.
So there.
Can I shove my large penis up your dryed-out, 60+ year old cunt?
3 day ban granted.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
- Login to post comments
Offline This message sent to Bismilah via email:
You were warned, you have since acted extremely immature and crude, you are banned until Wednesday.
The following posts are what are at issue:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/32594#comment-386607
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/32592#comment-386622
These posts are sexually crude, add nothing to the discussion and aren't welcome.
Grow up, freak.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
- Login to post comments
Offline
Well done Brian.
"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."
VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"
If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?
- Login to post comments
Offline Sexually crude comments do not upset me. But I don't welcome them, either.
Edit: BTW, I noticed the VIP badge -
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
- Login to post comments
Offline Sexually crude comments do not upset me. But I don't welcome them, either.
Edit: BTW, I noticed the VIP badge -
Yeah, you're super important around here. So glad to have had you around for so long.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
- Login to post comments
Offline wow, all this time and I don't recall anyone actually being banned other than matt....something something
- Login to post comments
Offline An attribute a is great-making if and only if it is better for some being x to have a than to lack a; that is, x, by virtue of having a, has an additional perfection without which x would be qualitatively deficient. That is as rigorous as a definition as I can give; if you still don't get it, then read Anselm and Plantinga. I can't explain it any better.
That's actually one of the best philosophical definitions I've ever read. Shame you had to spoil it with your "I want to shove my cock in you" nonsense...
There isn't.
Oh, good. I'm glad to hear this God won't allow me to roast in hell for all enternity like most believers claim.
I already told you; God is a maximally great being by definition. Therefore, he must possess every great-making attribute, whatever those attributes may be.
Correct, but your definition of God tells us nothing about whether this being exists or not--which I think is a more important topic.
What if I just offered to put my cock up your ass?
Technically, that's not intercourse.
Incorrect, see below:
Sexual intercourse is commonly defined as the insertion of a male's penis into a female's vagina for the purposes of sexual pleasure or reproduction. The term may also describe other sexual penetrative acts, such as anal sex, oral sex and.. (from the wikipedia page "Sexual intercourse" )
- Login to post comments
Offline
I'm saying that when I say "God," I mean an omnipotent, omniscient, immaterial, eternal, perfectly good being.
needs data to supports its hypotheses...what you are saying is that you 'define' a humanly undefinable god using only humanly undefinable attributes. Why not give us just one objective quality of your god?
No 'perfect' being can only prove itself using fallacious bald assertions...
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
- Login to post comments
Offline bismilah wrote:I'm saying that when I say "God," I mean an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good being.
I don't particularly care what your definition of perfectly good is, there is no being with that attribute. There is no perfectly good, all powerful, all knowing being. Doesn't exist. Can't exist. No evidence for existence. The ontological argument is a crock.
A maximally great being can not be imagined or envisioned by you or I. If we were to bother attempting to define said being, explain said being, or just agree on the attributes of said being, trust me, we could not agree.
So there.
What she said...
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
- Login to post comments
Offline wow bisimilah your a theistard troll douche... ive never seen such flip flopping from hardcore theist to degenerate sailor mouth.. hyppocricy anyone?
Chris
- Login to post comments
Offline I think bisimilah got bounced just hard enough where he wont be back. And what does it say of a person who can't handle a "three day" banning.
- Login to post comments
Offline
ThunderJones wrote:bismilah wrote:ThunderJones wrote:bismilah wrote:But because you are uneducated, you just don't understand the answers I'm trying to give you.
I guess anyone who disagrees with you is instantly uneducated?
lol. I would respond to your whole post, but when I finished refuting it, you'd probably just request intercourse with me. (No in advance, by the way).
What if I just offered to put my cock up your ass?
Technically, that's not intercourse.
Wow, it's like you are five years old or something. People are seeing past your little game of lets-pretend-to-be-rational-people and you are throwing a fit.
Typical Theistard behavior. You do more for the atheist cause than a lot of atheists. Thanks.
I love you. I just want to bite real hard on your nipples. If you ever have a baby and start breast feeding, I want to suck the milk out of you and make my bones nice and strong.
"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings."
- Login to post comments
I, too, am tired of hearing believers rationalizations. I'm working off of this definition of rationalization ----
In psychology and logic, rationalization (also known as making excuses[1]) is an unconscious defense mechanism in which perceived controversial behaviors or feelings are logically justified and explained in a rational or logical manner in order to avoid any true explanation, and are made consciously tolerable – or even admirable and superior – by plausible means.[2] Rationalization encourages irrational or unacceptable behavior, motives, or feelings and often involves ad hoc hypothesizing. This process ranges from fully conscious (e.g. to present an external defense against ridicule from others) to mostly subconscious (e.g. to create a block against internal feelings of guilt).
People rationalize for various reasons. Rationalization may differentiate the original deterministic explanation of the behavior or feeling in question.[3][4] Sometimes rationalization occurs when we think we know ourselves better than we do. It is also an informal fallacy of reasoning. ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalization_%28making_excuses%29
I wanted to throw that out there because often I'll hear how "logic" was applied to their chosen answer but, for me, that doesn't change the rationalization.
KORAN, n.
A book which the Mohammedans foolishly believe to have been written by divine inspiration, but which Christians know to be a wicked imposture, contradictory to the Holy Scriptures. ~ The Devil's Dictionary
It kills me when they try to tell me : "Who are you to question the work of god ?"
I generally respond with " Who are you to tell me what god's work is ?"
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
What gets me is that so many people simply accept it but don't question it. It would be quite likely that if there were some sort of god that the being would act differently from us, and some of its behaviors would seem very odd and difficult to explain. It happens quite often when examining animal behavior that the animals do something that is initially very difficult to explain. But instead of simply accepting that the animal is "mysterious" people study the animals more in depth and discover why the animals exhibit the behaviors that seem strange at first.
Theists seem to have no desire to understand why a god would do what they say he does. They simply accept it. Furthermore, they assume that god is necessarily good with no desire to actually find out whether he is. Why is god good? Because he says so?!? Their whole mental process reminds me of a three year old that automatically accepts whatever their parents say because they have not developed the ability to really question them yet. Instead of growing up, theists continue to accept "because I said so" as a valid reason to believe what they are told. My nieces and nephews stopped accepting that as a reason sometime around age four. Yet theists often refuse to seriously consider the most important and powerful question- Why?
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
i married into a devout christian family of varying faiths... such as a devout methodist mother in law, a die hard old school catholic grandfather, a former southern baptist minister uncle, and a born baptist father in law who is more agnostic than anything else, a german jewish wife, a methodist sister in law.. they are very accepting and loving reguardless of faith,,their philosophy is "live and let live' which is similar to my thoughts.. also i hear about the inconcievable god plan that we puny humans cant comprehend... so i hear this all the time.. i posted a new fourm topic if anyone cares to read it.. its has to do with stigmata and exorcisms etc.....http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/32606
Chris
I think you are confused about the metaphysics of morals with respect to theistic world views. To ask why God is good is like asking why a bachelor is unmarried--God is good because the concept of God includes perfect goodness. God, by definition, is a maximally great being; a maximally great being includes every great-making quality; we construe moral goodness as a great-making attribute; and so, we must conceive of God as being perfectly good. (And of course, once we unpack this more fully, we find that "moral goodness," when fully delineated as a term, has no meaning beyond maximal greatness; it turns out that "morally good" is a basic term that can be only defined by example, and thus always partakes of a paradigmatic account of personhood, which, when reified, is just God.)
So it makes little sense for us to question whether God is actually good--by definition, he must be. However, we might question whether the being we're worshipping really is God.
So if god does something that us mere mortals would consider not good, is that proof that the being is not god, or are we wrong about what is good?
If you believe that a being created the universe, our world and all life on it, how is it necessary that the being is good? Or are you saying that being simply gets to decide what is good because it created?
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
1) Not all God concepts include omnibenevolence, are you talking about your God claim (or the definition you are using for the discussion)? You seem to be asserting a certain definition is the true one. You should give that definition if discussing it.
2) Your God includes every 'great-making' quality? What does that mean? You need to list some things, because many omni-blanks or perfectly-blanks are often extremely contradictory by nature.
Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker
It could go either way.
It is not the creation of the universe whence God has perfect goodness; in fact, the creation of the universe is a contingent attribute of God, given that there are possible worlds where God exists but creates no universes. So your question is malformed and trades upon your misunderstanding.
I'm saying that God is perfectly good because God is defined as a maximally great being, and goodness is a great-making attribute; nowhere in this is it implied that God gets to decide what is good and what isn't. In fact, it couldn't be that God just decides what is good--since goodness itself would have to be intrinsic to God's nature--anymore than God could decide exactly how much knowledge constitutes omnipotence.
If by "omnibenevolence" you mean perfect goodness, then I need to ask you which theistic philosophers (that you know of) have a concept of God that doesn't include perfect goodness as a great-making attribute; I personally am not aware of any. If by "omnibenevolence," you mean that God is a nice guy all the time, then not even my God concept contains that.
Definitions are not the sorts of things that have truth values; they are simply stipulations of what you mean by certain terms. My definition of "God," however, is not any sort of aberration; it pretty much follows the vernacular of the Early Church Fathers to the modern philosophers (not including guys like Spinoza, of course) to contemporary apologists like Dr. Craig and Alvin Plantinga. As I've stated, God is defined as a maximally great being--maximal greatness being the infinite possession of attributes which it is ontologically greater to have than to lack, i.e., intellect, power, etc.
For example, it is greater to be able to see everything around you than it is to be blind; it is greater for a human male to possess a penis than it is for it to be cut off; it is greater for someone to drink water than it is to drink cyanide; these are examples of good attributes, as opposed to attributes that are not so good.
Of course, these are just basic examples to demonstrate the objectivity of good and bad (not in a moral sense, but just in general). Fundamentally, goodness is measured according to intellect and potency.
Can you give an example of what makes them contradictory?
Most if not all of the Greek gods do not have an inherent 'perfect goodness' (plenty of people believed in them, in addition). I think this will be easier if you defined what 'perfect goodness' is, since you are the one claiming your God has it.
It would be a bad idea for me to start refuting features which we haven't established you are even claiming yet, or that you haven't properly defined.
This seems awfully evasive. You haven't seems to answered my questions. How have you determined what is 'great' and 'not great'. What is 'good' and 'not good'.
What are the features or qualities of your God? I'm not familiar with the views of most modern apologetics, please specify some of the things your God concept 'is'.
We still haven't established what you are talking about when you say 'great-making' qualities, or even when you say 'perfect goodness'.
As far as what I am talking about, one example is if one were to say a God was 'perfectly merciful' than that diametrically opposes the notion of ANY form of punishment, either in this life or some unproven afterlife. This is also opposed to a 'perfectly just' God, as mercy is defined as the suspension of justice, and punishment.
Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker