Debate in central hall, westminster tonight: "Is God a Delusion?"

[ohp]

Heard about it on radio 4 this morning. The last 20 minutes of the today programme had Martin Amis and Christopher hitchens talking about writing, then WIlliam Craig and Lewis Wolpert discussing the existence of god. They're discussing it tonight in London:

Alas, I can't make it. If any Londonites are in the area, and can make it

Tuesday 27th February 7.30pm – London
Central Hall, Westminster, SW1H 9NH
Professor William Lane Craig debates with Prof. Lewis Wolpert,
‘Is God a Delusion?’

[ohp]

anyone wanting to listen to the show can listen to it tomorrow at this url

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/

currently it's showing yesterdays show.

[Blutarsky]

This is the debate that Craig had invited Richard Dawkins to be a part of. These are always interesting, but the better debater usually wins regardless of their position.

[ohp]

Yeah... I kind of got that impression from the brief discussion on the radio this morning. The theist seemed to have an answer for all of the points, the atheist seemed to argue from a position of incredulity at the deep philosophical mumbo jumbo coming from the theist, and appeared to fail to capitalise on some major inconsistencies and contradictions in his argument.

[Blutarsky]

William Lane Craig is probably one of the greatest debaters of the 20th/21st century concerning the existence of god, meta-ethics and the historicity of Jesus. If you read some of the reviews on IIDB of debates he has had with atheists, you will see that even they concede he's much better than most of his opponents.

Atheists are often confounded by his debating skills, and most just end up arguing from a position of incredulity. Although I think Kai Nielsen did a good job, and Craig and Graham Oppy have had some good exchanges in writing.

Here is a link to a dozen or more debates he has had over the last few years. http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/debates.html

The Harvard Veritas forum is another good place to look for debates...

[pandamonk]

I'd love to have a debate with a truly brilliant theistic debater. When i listen to or see a debate, i usually feel as though the atheist debater could do better, as though he is somehow holding back, or missing/doesn't know things that even I know.

I'm quite young and don't back down to easily, but I'm also better debating in forums, through emails, or instant messaging, 'cause that's the way I've learned. When i attempt to argue face to face i tend to fail, or find it a lot hearder than i would otherwise. I just can't seem to think as quickly, or of the same things.

Lee

[pandamonk]

Will this debate actually be on the radio tonight? what time?

[Blutarsky]

I'd love to have a debate with a truly brilliant theistic debater. When i listen to or see a debate, i usually feel as though the atheist debater could do better, as though he is somehow holding back, or missing/doesn't know things that even I know.

I'm quite young and don't back down to easily, but I'm also better debating in forums, through emails, or instant messaging, 'cause that's the way I've learned. When i attempt to argue face to face i tend to fail, or find it a lot hearder than i would otherwise. I just can't seem to think as quickly, or of the same things.

LeeDebating is definitely an art. It's always easy to coach from the sidelines, and I find myself doing it when I listen. I think, when you are in a debate it's easy to get stuck in a mental rut, and honestly it exposes weaknesses in the listening skills of the debater. I think good points often get passed up just because people aren't really listening to what the other party is saying.

Intimidation is also a factor if you're in front of a crowd, or even just face-to-face with another person.

[pandamonk]

Debating is definitely an art. It's always easy to coach from the sidelines, and I find myself doing it when I listen. I think, when you are in a debate it's easy to get stuck in a mental rut, and honestly it exposes weaknesses in the listening skills of the debater. I think good points often get passed up just because people aren't really listening to what the other party is saying.

Intimidation is also a factor if you're in front of a crowd, or even just face-to-face with another person.
Exactly!! Aha, thanks. This explains it exactly. I do find myself basically screaming at the screen when i'm listening to debates etc. I think that's why it's easier to debate online etc. 'Cause you can read and reread what is said, you can think about your reply etc. But I definitely feel intimidated face to face, and especially if it gets heated. I feel people are shouting over me etc. which they do a lot. Especially an inexperienced debater.

Lee

[ohp]

Will this debate actually be on the radio tonight? what time?

alas, no. but if you google for the keywords in the event, it appears he's going about the UK debating lots of people.

[Blutarsky]

I appears most atheists who do debate Craig are very unprepared for what they are about to encounter. He's very persuasive and highly educated and a skilled debater. It would do atheists well to groom some highly skilled debaters if they are going to try and make inroads in the art.

As good as Craig is, there are many other apologists who are just as good, if not better, in their defense of the Christian faith. Ravi Zacharias routinely debates and holds forums at universities all over the world, and he routinely goes toe-to-toe with some of the most brilliant minds in world.

I'll be interested to see if Dawkins takes Craig up on his challenge. Dawkins has formally declined to debate Craig, but Craig is debating "Is God a Delusion" with two other atheist scholars in the UK in place of Dawkins. This is the first of the two.

[pandamonk]

I appears most atheists who do debate Craig are very unprepared for what they are about to encounter. He's very persuasive and highly educated and a skilled debater. It would do atheists well to groom some highly skilled debaters if they are going to try and make inroads in the art.

As good as Craig is, there are many other apologists who are just as good, if not better, in their defense of the Christian faith. Ravi Zacharias routinely debates and holds forums at universities all over the world, and he routinely goes toe-to-toe with some of the most brilliant minds in world.

I'll be interested to see if Dawkins takes Craig up on his challenge. Dawkins has formally declined to debate Craig, but Craig is debating "Is God a Delusion" with two other atheist scholars in the UK in place of Dawkins. This is the first of the two.
I don't see Dawkings as being a particularly good debater, but i suppose he's probably better than I'd be.

When i debate the existence of God, i don't usually go into the debate prepared. If i were to, i doubt I'd remember all/anything i had prepared, unless it was written down.

I think it is better to see what you're up against than to prepare for what you might be.

Lee

[pandamonk]

alas, no. but if you google for the keywords in the event, it appears he's going about the UK debating lots of people.
About England don't you mean ;)

[Blutarsky]

I don't see Dawkings as being a particularly good debater.... I don't think he does either, that's why he's staying as far away from Craig as he can possibly get.

[ohp]

About England don't you mean ;)

OK, I'll rephrase: Amongst the majority of the UK population :-)

Tuesday 27th February 7.30pm – London
Central Hall, Westminster, SW1H 9NH
DEBATE with Prof. Lewis Wolpert,
‘Is God a Delusion?’

Wednesday 28th February 7.30pm – London
All Souls, Langham Place, W1B 3DA
LECTURE: ‘The Evidence for Christianity’

Thursday 1st March 7.30pm – Bristol University
Great Hall, Wills Memorial Building, BS8 1RJ
DEBATE with Dr. Andrew Pyle,
‘Does the Christian God Exist?’

Friday 2nd March 7.30pm – Oxford
Town Hall, St Aldates, OX1 1BX
LECTURE: ‘Does God Exist?’

Monday 5th March 7pm – Manchester
University, Roscoe Building LT A, Oxford Rd,
M13 9PL LECTURE: ‘Is Life without God Absurd?’

Tuesday 6th March 7.30pm – Sheffield
University Student Union Auditorium, Western
Bank, S10 2TN
DEBATE with Dr James Crossley, ‘Was Jesus
Bodily Raised from the Dead?’

Wednesday 7th March 7.30pm – Liverpool
University, Mountford Hall, 160 Mount Pleasant,
L69 3GJ DEBATE with Prof. Mike Begon,
‘Is God a Delusion?’

Thursday 8th March 7.30pm – Nottingham
University Lecture Theatre B52, Jubilee
Campus, NG8 1BB LECTURE:
‘Who Was Jesus of Nazareth?’

Friday 9th March 7.45pm – Cambridge
University Babbage Lecture Theatre,
Department of Materials, CB2 3QZ
LECTURE: ‘How Can a Good God allow
Suffering and Evil?’

LEWIS WOLPERT is Professor of Biology as Applied to Medicine at
University College London. A past chairman for the Committee for the
Public Understanding of Science, his books include ‘Six Impossible
Things Before Breakfast: The Evolutionary Origins of Belief’. Lewis
Wolpert is well known for his atheistic beliefs.

WILLIAM LANE CRAIG is Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot
School of Theology in California. He has doctorates in philosophy
(Birmingham UK) and theology (Munich). A popular international lecturer
on university campuses, Dr. Craig has authored or edited over thirty
books, including his signature work ‘Reasonable Faith’. Many of his
articles and debates are available online www.williamlanecraig.com.
Bill Craig is an instinctive communicator as well as a
fine thinker. He is in great demand across Europe and
the USA. His lectures and debates are world class
and appeal to sceptics and believers alike.


The snippets from The todat programme can be accessed at:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today5_amis_20070227.ram

and

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today5_god_20070227.ram

OK, the first link isn't anything to do with the debates, but I understand Chris Hitchens is popular amongst some of the jref crowd..

[FaisonMars]

I listened to the Today archive this afternoon, and indeed, the American did unusually well against someone with an Oxbridge accent. I could make my case (as an atheist) against all of the points he brought up in that short segment, but I certainly would not sound so calm, precise, and articulate.

I hope I get to hear him on the radio or see him in the northeast some day.

[ceo_esq]

I don't see Dawkings as being a particularly good debater, but i suppose he's probably better than I'd be.

The major problem I see is that Dawkins not infrequently wades into philosophy - he almost has to, given the scope of his project - and unfortunately he's not nearly as good a philosopher as he fancies he is.

[CapelDodger]

Yeah... I kind of got that impression from the brief discussion on the radio this morning. The theist seemed to have an answer for all of the points, the atheist seemed to argue from a position of incredulity at the deep philosophical mumbo jumbo coming from the theist, and appeared to fail to capitalise on some major inconsistencies and contradictions in his argument.
I haven't listened to the debate yet but I caught this on Today and thought they were both rather weak. I wonder how this Craig chap would fare on this Forum? That stuff about "you can't disprove solipsism" was puerile. The debate subject presupposes a difference between delusion and obective reality, so solpsism don't enter into it :rolleyes: .

[CapelDodger]

The major problem I see is that Dawkins not infrequently wades into philosophy - he almost has to, given the scope of his project - and unfortunately he's not nearly as good a philosopher as he fancies he is.
The thing to remember about Philosophy, and to keep in mind when faced by it, is that it's bollocks. The Emperor has no clothes. The useful bits budded off long ago, as logic - useful logic, applicable to real problems - science, mathematics, linguistics. The Last and Greatest Philosopher was Mark Twain. Since then, squat.

eta : where I come from, to "wade in" carries implications of fists and boots flailing, to "take on" something in a pugnacious manner.

[ceo_esq]

The thing to remember about Philosophy, and to keep in mind when faced by it, is that it's bollocks. The Emperor has no clothes. The useful bits budded off long ago, as logic - useful logic, applicable to real problems - science, mathematics, linguistics. The Last and Greatest Philosopher was Mark Twain. Since then, squat.

I will try to keep that in mind. :D

[CapelDodger]

I will try to keep that in mind. :D
Hey, how y'all been :) ?

I've been wading into Philosophy since my schooldays, sometimes you have to, however outnumbered or outclassed you are. There's just so much affront a body can put up with.

So anyway, back to the thread. God, Delusion. Easy to prove there's a god that isn't a delusion by finding one that exists entirely independantly of anybody having thought of it. Something truly bizarre, no links to common tales and myths and icons, nothing anthropomorphic but definitely being a god. Supernatural and all, and undeniably there to be seen, perhaps to move amongst us convincingly.

Not happened yet. Delusions and gods do seem to be sourced from a particular skullscape, and the common source has been narrowed down quite drastically from that. Case not proven, of course, but the evidence points one way ...

[Darth Rotor]

Debate in central hall, westminster tonight: "Is God a Delusion?"
No.

Next question?

DR

[Glen.Nogami]

Debate in central hall, westminster tonight: "Is God a Delusion?"
No.

Next question?

DR
Anyone else want to play "assertion Ping Pong?"

DR

:rolleyes:

[Lonewulf]

No.

Next question?

You're wrong.

Next statement?

[Small Town Jesus]

No.

Next question?

DR

You're deluded.

Case closed.

[Darth Rotor]

:rolleyes:
Glen:

In "Assertion ping pong," you have to hit one back over the net.

You lose this point.

The other players at least sent a ball back over the net. They understand "Assertion Ping Ping," the new Milton Bradley game that is fun for the whole internet. :cool:

For Small town Jesus: You are narrow minded.

For Lonewulf: you are wrong.

See how much fun this is?

DR

[cyborg]

I'm right.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Is anyone going to define god before debating whether it is a delusion, illusion, allusion, or whatever?

When I receive a coherent definition, then I'll get all debatey about it. :D

~~ Paul

[cyborg]

I am god.

Debate away.

[pandamonk]

Is anyone going to define god before debating whether it is a delusion, illusion, allusion, or whatever?

When I receive a coherent definition, then I'll get all debatey about it. :D

~~ Paul
I think it is assumed that when we talk about God, we mean the omnipotent,omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipresent, transcendent, wholly good, monotheistic, creator of the universe, among others.

Lee

[Jekyll]

I am god.

Debate away.

Can you perform an arbitrary action you can't undo?

[cyborg]

Can you perform an arbitrary action you can't undo?

No.

[Jekyll]

No.

Doesn't that make life quite boring?

[cyborg]

The concept of life is not applicable to me.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I think it is assumed that when we talk about God, we mean the omnipotent,omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipresent, transcendent, wholly good, monotheistic, creator of the universe, among others.
Yeah, that's what everyone says. Then they have to spend millennia trying to decide whether god can make an object he can't move, whether he knows what he is going to do in the future, what sort of definition of benevolent could possibly make him omnibenevolent, where he actually is (is he supernatural?), how he interacts with the universe, whether creator = designer, and so forth.

What I want is a coherent definition of god.

~~ Paul

[ohp]

I am god.

Debate away.

I hereby issue you with a class action lawsuit on behalf of the people of New Orleans, Ms Britney Spears, the inhabitants of the towns surrounding mount Vesuvius, and anyone that's bought a Cliff Richard album.

[pandamonk]

Yeah, that's what everyone says. Then they have to spend millennia trying to decide whether god can make an object he can't move, whether he knows what he is going to do in the future, what sort of definition of benevolent could possibly make him omnibenevolent, where he actually is (is he supernatural?), how he interacts with the universe, whether creator = designer, and so forth.

What I want is a coherent definition of god.

~~ Paul
Your requirement is impossible to fulfill :D

[cyborg]

I hereby issue you with a class action lawsuit on behalf of the people of New Orleans, Ms Britney Spears, the inhabitants of the towns surrounding mount Vesuvius, and anyone that's bought a Cliff Richard album.

I am not subject to the processes of justice. That is a human concept.

[AgingYoung]

Yeah, that's what everyone says. Then they have to spend millennia trying to decide whether god can make an object he can't move, ....
~~ Paul

God is incapable of doing the absurd; that takes human intervention.

Gene

[ohp]

I am not subject to the processes of justice. That is a human concept.

so is posting to internet forums.

[pandamonk]

God is incapable of doing the absurd; that takes human intervention.

Gene
Are you saying that there is something that we can do which God cannot? Is he not omnipotent?

[cyborg]

so is posting to internet forums.

That is an action, not a concept.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Your requirement is impossible to fulfill.
Bingo! Yet we will forever debate the existence of god.

Let's hypothesize some other incoherent concept and debate it instead. You know, just for a change of pace.

~~ Paul

[pandamonk]

Bingo! Yet we will forever debate the existence of god.

Let's hypothesize some other incoherent concept and debate it instead. You know, just for a change of pace.

~~ Paul
Only reason we still debate it, is 'cause people still think it exists. They try and force this belief on us, and condemn us for our beliefs(not all, but some).

[Lonewulf]

For Lonewulf: you are wrong.

You're something that rhymes with "ping-pong".

Guess what it is.

[ohp]

That is an action, not a concept.

When did you conceive this action?

never mind :-)

[Glen.Nogami]

Glen:

In "Assertion ping pong," you have to hit one back over the net.

You lose this point.

I just kinda assumed it was hypocrisy, my apologies.

[CapelDodger]

... "Assertion Ping Ping," the new Milton Bradley game that is fun for the whole internet. :cool:

For Small town Jesus: You are narrow minded.

For Lonewulf: you are wrong.

See how much fun this is?

DR
Do you get bonus scores for multi-ball?

[Mashuna]

Do you get bonus scores for multi-ball?

Yes, but you lose if you tilt.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Only reason we still debate it, is 'cause people still think it exists. They try and force this belief on us, and condemn us for our beliefs(not all, but some).
Then I propose the first thing we do in a debate is ask for a coherent definition of god. We won't get one, so then we won't have to move on to the repeat theatre portion of the program.

~~ Paul

[Ichneumonwasp]

Bingo! Yet we will forever debate the existence of god.

Let's hypothesize some other incoherent concept and debate it instead. You know, just for a change of pace.

~~ Paul

Lemon curry?

[Glen.Nogami]

Sounds good. How about beauty?

Though lemon curry is possibly more and less delicious.

[pandamonk]

Then I propose the first thing we do in a debate is ask for a coherent definition of god. We won't get one, so then we won't have to move on to the repeat theatre portion of the program.

~~ Paul
But they will give the definition that i gave, believing it to be coherent. This leads us to have to debate with them and show that it isn't.

Lee

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

But they will give the definition that i gave, believing it to be coherent. This leads us to have to debate with them and show that it isn't.
That's fine. At least we're not debating whether god exists.

Is lemon curry omniscient?

~~ Paul

[pandamonk]

That's fine. At least we're not debating whether god exists.

Is lemon curry omniscient?

~~ Paul
Hah, lemon curry? Does it have the capacities to contain knowledge? We're debating whether the standard definition of God is coherent. If so, then God is possible, if not then he is impossible by the current definition.

Lee

[Mr Clingford]

Are you saying that there is something that we can do which God cannot? Is he not omnipotent?This is where a lot of people, perhaps especially Christians, use these terms without much thinking (no surprise there, I hear you say). God is not capable of sinning, as it is against his nature, so we can do something that God cannot.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Is lemon curry omniscient?

~~ Paul


Could be, could be. A wink's as good as a nod to a blind bat, know what I mean, know what I mean?

Nudge, nudge.

[Ichneumonwasp]

[full exegitical mode]We must consider, of course, that curry, lemon, and form are one. Three in one, in fact. One cannot separate curry from lemon from form. The bat, blind in its understanding of these mysteries, is us. Lest we forget, as left us in scripture, Curry so loved the bat that he gave to the flying rodent his only begotten, lemon.[/full exegitical mode]

Let us rejoice children and enjoin in that timeless refrain.......

Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, lovely Spam

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

God is not capable of sinning, as it is against his nature, so we can do something that God cannot.
It's possible that the concept of sin simply doesn't exist with god, so the question of whether he can sin would be moot.

~~ Paul

[pandamonk]

This is where a lot of people, perhaps especially Christians, use these terms without much thinking (no surprise there, I hear you say). God is not capable of sinning, as it is against his nature, so we can do something that God cannot.
The ability to do anything takes some kind of power or energy, so the more things you can do the more energy you must have. If you have all energy, you can do all things. If there is something you cannot do, then surely you cannot have all energy/power.

[AgingYoung]

pandamonk,

There is no meaning of omnipotent that would include an ability to do the absurd. In the sense of it meaning 'almighty or infinite in power, as God' having infinite power and doing any and every thing within your power are two different things.

In other words just because God could do something doesn't mean that He would. Also we can be absurd but God can't. Further there's nothing in the meaning of omnipotence that would imply He should have the ability to be absurd or contradict.

Gene

[pandamonk]

It's possible that the concept of sin simply doesn't exist with god, so the question of whether he can sin would be moot.

~~ Paul
But God knows of sin, we can see that from any holy book, so the concept of sin certainly does exist with God. Now you could say that sin is defined as going against the word of God, and the Biblical god does this all the time. He has a double standard, it's ok for him to do things we cannot. So yes, the Biblical God can and does sin, ie he does that which he claims to be wrong or evil. How can he therefore be all good? Just 'cause he says so?

Lee

[pandamonk]

pandamonk,

There is no meaning of omnipotent that would include an ability to do the absurd. In the sense of it meaning 'almighty or infinite in power, as God' having infinite power and doing any and every thing within your power are two different things.

In other words just because God could do something doesn't mean that He would. Also we can be absurd but God can't. Further there's nothing in the meaning of omnipotence that would imply He should have the ability to be absurd or contradict.

Gene
He has the ability to do all, absurd or not. Omnipotence means to have all power, and with all power comes the ability to do all.

If he cannot do something, he is not allpowerful. Similarly, if he just chooses not to do something, how can we know he actually can do everything?

The burden of proof lies with him, or the theist at least.

Lee

[AgingYoung]

Lee,

That is your definition. It reminds me of a kid growing up. I finished supper and pushed my plate away smiling and asked, 'what's for dessert?' My dad said, 'how's about I kick your butt up around your shoulders and we call it dessert?' I suggested, 'how's about I skip dessert?' to which my dad said, 'smart kid.'

He has the ability to do all, absurd or not. ...

[ImaginalDisc]

This is where a lot of people, perhaps especially Christians, use these terms without much thinking (no surprise there, I hear you say). God is not capable of sinning, as it is against his nature, so we can do something that God cannot.

Genocide, and condemning people to fiery torment forever look a lot like sin to me.

[ceo_esq]

He has the ability to do all, absurd or not. Omnipotence means to have all power, and with all power comes the ability to do all.

All what?

[Lonewulf]

Genocide, and condemning people to fiery torment forever look a lot like sin to me.

A "sin" kinda means divine law... he's outside of the law, as he made it.

Immoral, though, yeah.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

But God knows of sin, we can see that from any holy book, so the concept of sin certainly does exist with God.
Sorry, I didn't word my point very well. It's possible that sin is only pertinent to the natural world, not to the supernatural world that god supposedly inhabits. So god knows about it, but he can't sin, because sin is not an existent in the supernatural world.

Or something like that. Hey, it's incoherent. What can I say?

~~ Paul

[pandamonk]

Lee,

That is your definition. It reminds me of a kid growing up. I finished supper and pushed my plate away smiling and asked, 'what's for dessert?' My dad said, 'how's about I kick your butt up around your shoulders and we call it dessert?' I suggested, 'how's about I skip dessert?' to which my dad said, 'smart kid.'
Why not actually refute what I said? Surely all power implies the ability to do all. If God can do all, then he must also be able to do what we can do. If he can, but chooses not to, then surely how are we expected to believe that he can do all?

Lee

[pandamonk]

All what?
All=everything/anything

[pandamonk]

Sorry, I didn't word my point very well. It's possible that sin is only pertinent to the natural world, not to the supernatural world that god supposedly inhabits. So god knows about it, but he can't sin, because sin is not an existent in the supernatural world.

Or something like that. Hey, it's incoherent. What can I say?

~~ Paul
I know it's incoherent, that's what makes it so hard to show the theist, 'cause you are trying to show them that it's incoherent, so you use their definition and show it to be incoherent, and then they turn it round and say that what your saying is incoherent and doesn't make sense. They don't realise, sometimes, that all you've done is expand on their definition to prove the incoherence.

Anyway, if God is omnipresent, then surely he does exist within the natural world also. How else could he affect it? And also, like my point with AgingYoung, God is all powerful, so must at least be able to do as much as i can do. I can sin. If God cannot, then there is somethnig i can do which god cannot. His ability to do everything is diminished. If he cannot do everything, how can he be considered omnipotent?

Lee

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Anyway, if God is omnipresent, then surely he does exist within the natural world also. How else could he affect it?
Aha! Important point! Yes, it would seem that god has to have a finger in the natural world in order to be causal in it. However, it's an infinite regress. How is the finger connected to god, unless his entire hand is in the natural world? And if his entire hand, then his arm. And so forth, until god must be all natural. This is the crux of the natural/supernatural interface.

I daresay the concept supernatural is itself incoherent, at least if the supernatural is supposed to interact with the natural.

~~ Paul

[pandamonk]

Aha! Important point! Yes, it would seem that god has to have a finger in the natural world in order to be causal in it. However, it's an infinite regress. How is the finger connected to god, unless his entire hand is in the natural world? And if his entire hand, then his arm. And so forth, until god must be all natural. This is the crux of the natural/supernatural interface.

I daresay the concept supernatural is itself incoherent, at least if the supernatural is supposed to interact with the natural.

~~ PaulMust be both natural and supernatural :rolleyes:

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Anyway, if God is omnipresent, then surely he does exist within the natural world also. How else could he affect it? And also, like my point with AgingYoung, God is all powerful, so must at least be able to do as much as i can do. I can sin. If God cannot, then there is somethnig i can do which god cannot. His ability to do everything is diminished. If he cannot do everything, how can he be considered omnipotent?
I don't know that he is required to be able to do things which do not even exist in his realm. Of course, he can do them by incarnating in the natural world and doing them there.

Is that coherent? I doubt it. :D

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Must be both natural and supernatural.
It don't even know what that means.

~~ Paul

[pandamonk]

I don't know that he is required to be able to do things which do not even exist in his realm. Of course, he can do them by incarnating in the natural world and doing them there.

Is that coherent? I doubt it. :D

~~ Paul
Incarnating himself in the natural world, ie Christianity. But then if he sins, how can he therefore be all-good?

That is the incoherence! :jaw-dropp

[pandamonk]

It don't even know what that means.

~~ Paul
I don't think even God knows what it means...:confused:

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I'm awash in a sea of incoherence.

~~ Paul

[pandamonk]

I'm awash in a sea of incoherence.

~~ Paul
Yes, I wonder what a theist would think...

[pandamonk]

I don't think even God knows what it means...:confused:
And if God doesn't know something, wait for it...



...how the hell can he be omniscient?:boggled:

[Lonewulf]

Okay. My head officially hurts now.

[pandamonk]

Okay. My head officially hurts now.
And this is just the beginning :D ...




... Ohh wait, no...



... I'm off to bed now :faint:

[CapelDodger]

Sounds good. How about beauty?
It seems appropriate. Do Philosophers argue beauty these days?

[Glen.Nogami]

It seems appropriate. Do Philosophers argue beauty these days?

They used to. I'm slogging through Kant atm. Critique of the Judgement of Taste. I think we really need philosophers to go off on horrible tangents regarding the nature of Beauty.

[CapelDodger]

They used to. I'm slogging through Kant atm. Critique of the Judgement of Taste. I think we really need philosophers to go off on horrible tangents regarding the nature of Beauty.
We really need them to go off on the "B" Ark :mad: .

[RationalReverend]

William Lane Craig is probably one of the greatest debaters of the 20th/21st century concerning the existence of god, meta-ethics and the historicity of Jesus. If you read some of the reviews on IIDB of debates he has had with atheists, you will see that even they concede he's much better than most of his opponents.

Atheists are often confounded by his debating skills, and most just end up arguing from a position of incredulity. Although I think Kai Nielsen did a good job, and Craig and Graham Oppy have had some good exchanges in writing.

Here is a link to a dozen or more debates he has had over the last few years. http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/debates.html

The Harvard Veritas forum is another good place to look for debates...
sweet link, he is a molinist though

[Mosquito]

Question: Can god sin?

Answer: First we need to see what sin is, sin means "to miss the mark", mark is "the will of god", so sin = to do that which god does not want you to do.

It simply follows that god cannot sin, by definition.


Mosquito - Sin is not an absolute, but a relative term

[pandamonk]

Question: Can god sin?

Answer: First we need to see what sin is, sin means "to miss the mark", mark is "the will of god", so sin = to do that which god does not want you to do.

It simply follows that god cannot sin, by definition.


Mosquito - Sin is not an absolute, but a relative term
But God does what he teaches us not to, does that mean God sins by the standards he sets us?

[ohp]

Question: Can god sin?

Answer: First we need to see what sin is, sin means "to miss the mark", mark is "the will of god", so sin = to do that which god does not want you to do.

It simply follows that god cannot sin, by definition.


Mosquito - Sin is not an absolute, but a relative term

Ahh. So when the will of god is to do evil, doing so can never be a sin!

[pandamonk]

Question: Can god sin?

Answer: First we need to see what sin is, sin means "to miss the mark", mark is "the will of god", so sin = to do that which god does not want you to do.

It simply follows that god cannot sin, by definition.


Mosquito - Sin is not an absolute, but a relative term
I think, what is meant is, "Can God be evil?".

[ohp]

I think, what is meant is, "Can God be evil?".

Yes.

[bignickel]

Question: Can god sin?

Answer: First we need to see what sin is, sin means "to miss the mark", mark is "the will of god",
A 'mark' is the "will of god"??? Where the heck did that come from? I thought 'miss the mark' was always pretty obvious: to miss the target.

'Target' now means "god's will"? Bleh.

[Lonewulf]

To ask whether or not God can sin is a lot like saying, "Can a Totalitarian government be illegal?"

If the government makes the laws and can change them at will, then they can't break them.

[pandamonk]

To ask whether or not God can sin is a lot like saying, "Can a Totalitarian government be illegal?"

If the government makes the laws and can change them at will, then they can't break them.
What was meant was "Can God be/do evil?"

[Lonewulf]

What was meant was "Can God be/do evil?"

But then, define Evil. That's the problem right there; evil is subjective (relative) or objective (Absolute). If there's Absolute Good and Evil, then the "meter stick" is usually decided by either a Supreme Being, or perhaps a Supreme Moral Philosophy. If it's relative, then saying that a Supreme Being is evil or not is pretty much useless, especially when that Supreme Being has total power over you and your kind.

All of our judgements on God would be meaningless. It would be much like an ant deciding if the exterminator was good and evil. From the ant's point of view, something is poisoning and killing it, destroying it and it's hive completely. From the exterminator's point of view, he just cleared out a pest and made the area that much better for the residents. One sees a being that committed genocide, the other sees a bunch of dead insects that don't matter.

[pandamonk]

But then, define Evil. That's the problem right there; evil is subjective (relative) or objective (Absolute). If there's Absolute Good and Evil, then the "meter stick" is usually decided by either a Supreme Being, or perhaps a Supreme Moral Philosophy. If it's relative, then saying that a Supreme Being is evil or not is pretty much useless, especially when that Supreme Being has total power over you and your kind.

All of our judgements on God would be meaningless. It would be much like an ant deciding if the exterminator was good and evil. From the ant's point of view, something is poisoning and killing it, destroying it and it's hive completely. From the exterminator's point of view, he just cleared out a pest and made the area that much better for the residents. One sees a being that committed genocide, the other sees a bunch of dead insects that don't matter.
I don't believe in absolute good and evil, but a theist must. What god tells us to do is good, and not to do evil. If he then goes and does something which he has told us is evil, then by his rules he is evil.

With your insects, one thing that's different is that we did not create the ants in order to kill them. They exist along side us.

Lee

[chriswl]

There's a famous question, derived from Plato that's relevant here:

“Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?”.
In the first case this means our morality is independent of God and we don't need to refer to God to justify moral laws anyway.

In the second case it means that morality is arbitrary and God could well have chosen an entirely different set of moral laws. There would then be no particular merit in being a good person, it would just mean being in conformance with whatever God happened to chose as "good".

Basically, the existence of a God cannot in itself establish an absolute standard for morality.

[Lonewulf]

I don't believe in absolute good and evil, but a theist must. What god tells us to do is good, and not to do evil. If he then goes and does something which he has told us is evil, then by his rules he is evil.

Well, you do have a point here, except this: God is Above his creation, and the laws he hands down to us don't necessarily have to consistent with his personal behavior. For instance, if I make a robot and tell him to not kill other robots, that doesn't mean that I can't dismantle or "kill" the robot that I created.

If you accept God as a moral being that can do no wrong whatsoever, even if he does things that would otherwise be considered as "wrong", then he can't do wrong. It's a bit of a circular argument, however. :D

With your insects, one thing that's different is that we did not create the ants in order to kill them. They exist along side us.

True, very true.

[strathmeyer]

Question: Can god sin?

Answer: First we need to see what sin is, sin means "to miss the mark", mark is "the will of god", so sin = to do that which god does not want you to do.

It simply follows that god cannot sin, by definition.

Are you saying that when Zeus had sex with multiple women unbeknownst to his wife Hera, that this was or was not a sin? Does something just have to be against the will of one god, or of all of the gods involved?

[Lonewulf]

Are you saying that when Zeus had sex with multiple women unbeknownst to his wife Hera, that this was or was not a sin? Does something just have to be against the will of one god, or of all of the gods involved?

But that's different. Zeus was part of a pantheon, of a religion that really did seem to believe more in a subjective morality. Greeks were less about sin and lack of sin. If you go against the will of the gods, it's not smart as you may end up getting screwed, but there's no sense of real Judgement.

Plus, they were all individual gods with their own views, and without Absolute Power. God has that Absolute Power; so the comparison between the two is like comparing a governor in a democracy, to Stalin.

[AgingYoung]

Why not actually refute what I said? Surely all power implies the ability to do all. If God can do all, then he must also be able to do what we can do. If he can, but chooses not to, then surely how are we expected to believe that he can do all?

.
.
I did refute your point, Lee. You are cherry picking the meaning of omnipotent to make the point the word is vague. Two connotations of omnipotent are:

almighty or infinite in power, as God.
having very great or unlimited authority or power.

The context 'The Omnipotent' directly references God; in that context 'God' and 'The Omnipotent' are synonymous. That is the first connotation.

The 2nd connotation has four terms:

having very great power
having very great authority
having unlimited power
having unlimited authority

...joined by 'or'

Saying that God is omnipotent could mean

having very great power and very great authority
having very great power and unlimited authority
having unlimited power and very great authority
having unlimited power and unlimited authority
having very great power and no authority
having very great authority and no power


There could be other intersections of meanings with terms joined by 'or'. It could be a vague word. The point of forcing a meaning as you are doing is absurd. Clearly you aren't God; if you were you wouldn't be absurd.

Gene

[AgingYoung]

Lee,

I'd like to add that even if you weren't so conflicted that wouldn't mean you were God. This unresolved conflict makes it painfully obvious you aren't and also you don't even know God.

How's about some dessert?

Gene

[pandamonk]

.
.
I did refute your point, Lee. You are cherry picking the meaning of omnipotent to make the point the word is vague. Two connotations of omnipotent are:

almighty or infinite in power, as God.
having very great or unlimited authority or power.
The context 'The Omnipotent' directly references God; in that context 'God' and 'The Omnipotent' are synonymous. That is the first connotation.

The 2nd connotation has four terms:

having very great power
having very great authority
having unlimited power
having unlimited authority...joined by 'or'

Saying that God is omnipotent could mean

having very great power and very great authority
having very great power and unlimited authority
having unlimited power and very great authority
having unlimited power and unlimited authority
having very great power and no authority
having very great authority and no power
There could be other intersections of meanings with terms joined by 'or'. It could be a vague word. The point of forcing a meaning as you are doing is absurd. Clearly you aren't God; if you were you wouldn't be absurd.

Gene
The word omnipotent was first used to describe God, as far as i know, in his all-power. It has since been used to describe governments, and the meaning has changed to accomodate this. Obviously governments do not have unlimited power, but they do have a lot. But God has always been described as having all-power. How could he have created the unvierse if he did not have all-power?

If he was all that existed before creation, he was all the power that existed. If after creation his power lessened, or there was mor epower than him, making him just a lot of power, but not all, then surely he is not immutable, another of his attributes.

God is described as perfect, a perfect being has no need to change. If something changes, it is usually for the better or worse. A perfect being cannot get any better than perfection, and to get worse would make it no longer perfect. Changing from all-power to just a lot of power would seem to be worse, and therefore by the definition you give, God in creating lost his perfection. Why would he do this?

Now he may not have changed, and it may be the circumstances. So in creating, he created another power outwith his control. This however means that he is not all-powerful and only very powerful. He may not have changed, but surely now he can be considered not as good as before creation, because now he is not out of reach. Another being could increase in power so much to be greater than God.

How can anything be greater than perfection?

Lee

[pandamonk]

Lee,

I'd like to add that even if you weren't so conflicted that wouldn't mean you were God. This unresolved conflict makes it painfully obvious you aren't and also you don't even know God.

How's about some dessert?

Gene
I have never claimed to be God, so this post is moot.

I am an atheist, i don't believe in a god.

[pandamonk]

Also, if God is the creator of everything, then surely before he created there existed only him. If this was the case, then before creation there was nothing but all-goodness. If after creation evil exists, then God must have created evil. If this is so, then he is not all-good. If he did not create evil, who did? Or was God always evil? Is he all-evil?

Lee

[Lonewulf]

Also, if God is the creator of everything, then surely before he created there existed only him. If this was the case, then before creation there was nothing but all-goodness. If after creation evil exists, then God must have created evil. If this is so, then he is not all-good. If he did not create evil, who did? Or was God always evil? Is he all-evil?

The last two questions are meaningless using the logic that you're using. If God was all-evil and stood before creation, then that means He created good.

[pandamonk]

The last two questions are meaningless using the logic that you're using. If God was all-evil and stood before creation, then that means He created good.
Nono, you don't get me. If God was evil before creation, he was all the evil that existed, and if he was good then he was all the good. So he was both all good and all evil. Or that's the only logically possible way anyway.

Lee

[Lonewulf]

Nono, you don't get me. If God was evil before creation, he was all the evil that existed, and if he was good then he was all the good. So he was both all good and all evil. Or that's the only logically possible way anyway.

Well, some theistic arguments I've heard claim that God created evil so people could learn to appreciate good.

...And then punishes people if they make the wrong choice.

[pandamonk]

Well, some theistic arguments I've heard claim that God created evil so people could learn to appreciate good.

...And then punishes people if they make the wrong choice.
That's a valid point, but still doesn't really address the point. If God created evil, then there must be something evil about him? Why create something so you can punish the ones who choose to do it, and then create them in a way so that evil is attractive to them?

It's like putting a young child(because to a being with all knowledge we must be pretty childlike) in a room with matches with lights placed around them to attract the child, then telling them not to touch, and walking out the room, and then when they get hurt, coming back in and giving them eternal punishment for not doing what you said. Thats not very just or merciful.

Now why not create all goodness or not even create at all? Why would a God create us unless he needed something? Love maybe? But how could a perfect god need anything?

Lee

[Lonewulf]

That's a valid point, but still doesn't really address the point. If God created evil, then there must be something evil about him? Why create something so you can punish the ones who choose to do it, and then create them in a way so that evil is attractive to them?

It's like putting a young child(because to a being with all knowledge we must be pretty childlike) in a room with matches with lights placed around them to attract the child, then telling them not to touch, and walking out the room, and then when they get hurt, coming back in and giving them eternal punishment for not doing what you said. Thats not very just or merciful.

Your analogy works well when you consider the problem with the Garden of Evil and the tree and the fruit. Essentially, he was undone by his own creation (Satan) in that particular... which implies that he was not perfect.

[pandamonk]

Your analogy works well when you consider the problem with the Garden of Evil and the tree and the fruit. Essentially, he was undone by his own creation (Satan) in that particular... which implies that he was not perfect.
Yes, i got the analogy from the Garden of Eden argument.

[l0rca]

Nono, you don't get me. If God was evil before creation, he was all the evil that existed, and if he was good then he was all the good. So he was both all good and all evil. Or that's the only logically possible way anyway.

Lee

I don't see how that's the only logically possible way. Actually, what I mean is, although I think you're following the path of logic coherently, once you reach "god is all good and all evil," you have reached a contradiction. I think therefore, if god is to exist, and be omnipotent, he can not be logically describable.

EDIT: Actually, I think as soon as the idea of omnipotence is considered, we've reached a contradiction. The definition seems to come with a built-in self-destruct sequence.

[pandamonk]

I don't see how that's the only logically possible way. Actually, what I mean is, although I think you're following the path of logic coherently, once you reach "god is all good and all evil," you have reached a contradiction. I think therefore, if god is to exist, and be omnipotent, he can not be logically describable.

EDIT: Actually, I think as soon as the idea of omnipotence is considered, we've reached a contradiction. The definition seems to come with a built-in self-destruct sequence.
Yes it certainly does. And for what i was saying, evil exists because of god, so therefore god is evil, and before creation he was the only evil that existed, so he was therefore all-evil, and cannot change from this due to his immutability. He is also all-good in that he was all the good that existed before creation, and couldn't change since. This is the only way that it is possible. Because before creation there was nothing but God, after there was lots of things including absolute good and absolute evil. God must have been both of these before creation.

[Lonewulf]

Why must He be all-evil or all-good? Why not half and half?

[pandamonk]

Why must He be all-evil or all-good? Why not half and half?
That's what i meant. It's not that he is completely evil, or completely good, but that he is all the evil and all the good that exists. But eayh half and half. But this is not the usual definition of a god, and it leads to questions about morality.

[Mashuna]

Your analogy works well when you consider the problem with the Garden of Evil and the tree and the fruit. Essentially, he was undone by his own creation (Satan) in that particular... which implies that he was not perfect.

I've spotted the problem. That's like going camping in the Forest of Death and Blood.

Apologies to Eddie Izzard

[AgingYoung]

The word omnipotent was first used to describe God, as far as i know, in his all-power. ...

What ever the etymology of omnipotence is, it can never be any more than man's understanding of God. The meaning of a word can and usually does change over time. In most cases and particularly in this case any change has no effect on what it describes (God).

It isn't necessary for God to change one bit for man's understanding to change; either to evolve or devolve.

Gene

[pandamonk]

What ever the etymology of omnipotence is, it can never be any more than man's understanding of God. The meaning of a word can and usually does change over time. In most cases and particularly in this case any change has no effect on what it describes (God).

It isn't necessary for God to change one bit for man's understanding to change; either to evolve or devolve.

Gene
This isn't what I meant in the quote. I meant that the definition of omnipotence has always been all-powerful. It only means very-powerful in cases such as governments etc. It's not that God has changed as how definition has changed. But that God has always been described as allmighty, meaning all-powerful. It does not matter that omnipotence can mean very-powerful, in the case of God it means all-powerful.

[AgingYoung]

pandamonk,

What I mean is that God is what he is regardless of man's attempt to define him. God is what he is regardless of what we think of him. If you attempt to force a description into a particular meaning there are some cases where the description is meaningless. But wrt the various meanings of omnipotent one can be found to describe God. Some of the meanings of omnipotent are clearly absurd.

Gene

This isn't what I meant in the quote. I meant that the definition of omnipotence has always been all-powerful. ...

[pandamonk]

pandamonk,

What I mean is that God is what he is regardless of man's attempt to define him. God is what he is regardless of what we think of him. If you attempt to force a description into a particular meaning there are some cases where the description is meaningless. But wrt the various meanings of omnipotent one can be found to describe God. Some of the meanings of omnipotent are clearly absurd.

Gene
But God has described himself in the various holy books. All i do is show that these definition are incompatible. God describe himself as almighty, having all-power. Something which created everything is not bound by anything. He has the power to do anything.

Unless your saying that the holy books are not God's word... If not then how can we know anything about God?

Lee

[Mosquito]

Sorry about the late answers to these. And also, sorry for the rather wishywashy(?) nature of the answers.

But God does what he teaches us not to, does that mean God sins by the standards he sets us?

No. Because god does not do that which god does not want done. And so it does not sin. If YOU did the same thing, you would be sinning, though, as it is not the will of god that you do it.

Ahh. So when the will of god is to do evil, doing so can never be a sin!

If god want some evil done, then it is not a sin to do it, but rather not to do it. This follows rather simply from the definition of "sin". It may still be the will of god that only god does this evil, though, so it may not apply to you.

A 'mark' is the "will of god"??? Where the heck did that come from? I thought 'miss the mark' was always pretty obvious: to miss the target.

'Target' now means "god's will"? Bleh.

This is what was explained to me, yes.

Are you saying that when Zeus had sex with multiple women unbeknownst to his wife Hera, that this was or was not a sin? Does something just have to be against the will of one god, or of all of the gods involved?

I don't have any idea as to how this applies in a non-christian/jewish(?) setting. It was explained to me by a christian friend.


Mosquito - Not making this up, but not saying it makes much sense either

[pandamonk]

Sorry about the late answers to these. And also, sorry for the rather wishywashy(?) nature of the answers.



No. Because god does not do that which god does not want done. And so it does not sin. If YOU did the same thing, you would be sinning, though, as it is not the will of god that you do it.



If god want some evil done, then it is not a sin to do it, but rather not to do it. This follows rather simply from the definition of "sin". It may still be the will of god that only god does this evil, though, so it may not apply to you.



This is what was explained to me, yes.



I don't have any idea as to how this applies in a non-christian/jewish(?) setting. It was explained to me by a christian friend.


Mosquito - Not making this up, but not saying it makes much sense either
Haha, so it's a case of "do as i say, not as i do"? Shouldn't he lead by example? If he wants us not to do something, why is it ok for him to do it? The burden is with you to explain this.

I realise that it isn't sinful for God to do it, but i realised this, and what I meant was is it evil? Because, what's at question is God's goodness. If God is evil, then he isn't wholly good.

[ohp]

Right, unless anyone can provide information/feedback about the debates themselves, I suggest we move this thread to a topic more befitting its contents.

[Mosquito]

Haha, so it's a case of "do as i say, not as i do"?

So it seems, yes.

Shouldn't he lead by example?

That would be nice, wouldn't it? But what can we do?

If he wants us not to do something, why is it ok for him to do it?

I have a friend in her mid 30s, she would probably jump at the possibility to have sex with Bruce Willis. This friend of mine has a daughter, about 2,5 years old. I do not think she would think it was OK for her daughter to do that which she would in this case.

Does this explain? Maybe, I don't know.

The burden is with you to explain this.

Me? Why? I don't subscribe to this kind of silly stupidities.

I realise that it isn't sinful for God to do it, but i realised this, and what I meant was is it evil?

From what I understand, god does not tolerate evil (or was it sin? I don't remember) so god does not do evil. Which can be confusing since anybody else doing the exact same thing would be evil.

Because, what's at question is God's goodness. If God is evil, then he isn't wholly good.

Unless god is holy good at it? ;)


Actually, what this clearly shows is that "sin" and quite likely "evil" are more a question of "who" than "what". Thereby securing the "goodness" of god and the "evil" of man.


Mosquito - No, I don't think like this, you'd have to be a powerful apologetist to wrap your mind around this without breaking anything.

[Lonewulf]

So...

If Man does A, it's evil. If God does A, it's not evil. If Man does B, it's good. If God does B, it's good. This proves that God is Good.

This is circular reasoning. The only reason that A is good for God is because you say it's good. To prove that God is good, you have to do this circular reasoning. It goes round and round. It makes no sense.

Can you imagine if I made this same argument for Stalin?

Stalin says that murder is bad, and that killing is wrong. But he gets away with genocide, because he's Stalin, and is above the normal average person. Stalin is good, though.

[pandamonk]

Me? Why? I don't subscribe to this kind of silly stupidities. Sorry. It lies with the person defending the idea that god exists. I asked a question, so the burden is with you to answer it. That's what i meant.

[pandamonk]

So...

If Man does A, it's evil. If God does A, it's not evil. If Man does B, it's good. If God does B, it's good. This proves that God is Good.

This is circular reasoning. The only reason that A is good for God is because you say it's good. To prove that God is good, you have to do this circular reasoning. It goes round and round. It makes no sense.

Can you imagine if I made this same argument for Stalin?

Stalin says that murder is bad, and that killing is wrong. But he gets away with genocide, because he's Stalin, and is above the normal average person. Stalin is good, though.
Exactly what I mean, but put in a much better way. :D

[Mosquito]

So...

If Man does A, it's evil. If God does A, it's not evil. If Man does B, it's good. If God does B, it's good. This proves that God is Good.

No, this is wrong, "god is good" is not the conclusion, it is the axiom. Thus even though A is clearly evil, the "god is good" axiom makes A good when god does it.

This is circular reasoning. The only reason that A is good for God is because you say it's good. To prove that God is good, you have to do this circular reasoning. It goes round and round. It makes no sense.

No, again same mistake. A is "good for god" because A is done by god and god is good by definition. It is therefore good in this one occation, and only because it is god doing it. If you did it 5 seconds before god got around to do it, A would be bad because you did it.

Can you imagine if I made this same argument for Stalin?

Stalin says that murder is bad, and that killing is wrong. But he gets away with genocide, because he's Stalin, and is above the normal average person. Stalin is good, though.

Same silly stupidity.

And it probably HAS been used to defend horrible acts for the "greater good"/"cause" or whatever. Probably even by Stalin or his cheerleaders.


Mosquito - May I stop "defending" the morally corrupt now?

[Lonewulf]

No, this is wrong, "god is good" is not the conclusion, it is the axiom. Thus even though A is clearly evil, the "god is good" axiom makes A good when god does it.

Then that axiom is crap.

If God does an evil action, and it's not evil, then it's not an evil action. Otherwise, he's not omnibenevolent.

[pandamonk]

No, this is wrong, "god is good" is not the conclusion, it is the axiom. Thus even though A is clearly evil, the "god is good" axiom makes A good when god does it.



No, again same mistake. A is "good for god" because A is done by god and god is good by definition. It is therefore good in this one occation, and only because it is god doing it. If you did it 5 seconds before god got around to do it, A would be bad because you did it.



Same silly stupidity.

And it probably HAS been used to defend horrible acts for the "greater good"/"cause" or whatever. Probably even by Stalin or his cheerleaders.


Mosquito - May I stop "defending" the morally corrupt now?
All you have done is shown that it is circular. An evil action is always an evil action. To say it is otherwise is a lie. To say that something evil is good, is to say that black is white, or hot is cold. On no occasion is black white, or hot cold, or evil good, no matter what causes it. Only by changing the definition of what is black, can black sometimes be not black. But to do this is delusional.

[pandamonk]

No, this is wrong, "god is good" is not the conclusion, it is the axiom. Thus even though A is clearly evil, the "god is good" axiom makes A good when god does it.This assumes that God is always good, but it is his goodness that is at question, so to assume he is already good will lead to circular reasoning.

If I say "even though A is clearly good, the "god is evil" axiom makes A evil when god does it", thenI am perfectly able to do this under the same reasoning as you.

[J. Arthur Hastur]

The debate I'd like to see is 'What Religion Does God Belong To'.

[Mosquito]

Then that axiom is crap.

So? I'm only the messenger here, I didn't make this up!

If God does an evil action, and it's not evil, then it's not an evil action. Otherwise, he's not omnibenevolent.

It becomes "not evil" simply, and only, because of who does it. Thus proving that morality is absolute... NOT!

Mosquito - This became bigger than anticipated

[Mosquito]

All you have done is shown that it is circular. An evil action is always an evil action. To say it is otherwise is a lie. To say that something evil is good, is to say that black is white, or hot is cold. On no occasion is black white, or hot cold, or evil good, no matter what causes it. Only by changing the definition of what is black, can black sometimes be not black. But to do this is delusional.

Um, in the mindset of some people, it seems to me that, "who dunnit" matters just as much as "what it dun" when "evil/good" buttons are placed.

Also, motive for doing something can change our perception of the morality of seemingly identical events. And since god is supposed to have better understanding/knowledge than any and all humans, it can be assumed that it only looks evil, but in reality it is good. And we would understand that if we had the knowledge and understanding of god.

Otherwise, I do not disagree with you. Personally, I think it is a major cop-out in order to save god's face from the obvious poo-flinging that would come its way if it was to stand responsable for its (non-)actions.


Mosquito - Earlier, at least, there actually were evil gods to blame for bad stuff. I blame rightsizing for this problem.

[Mosquito]

This assumes that God is always good, but it is his goodness that is at question, so to assume he is already good will lead to circular reasoning.

Well, you can always prove your axioms, no?

Can you actually test such an axiom within its system?

You and I are standing outside the system, and we can see the rather obvious flaws and stupidities of it, but can it be shown to be wrong from within?

If I say "even though A is clearly good, the "god is evil" axiom makes A evil when god does it", thenI am perfectly able to do this under the same reasoning as you.

Yes, that would work just as well. Now, for your Chocolate Egg Holidays homework: Make a fundy understand this.


Mosquito - Mmmmmm, chocolate eggs...

[pandamonk]

Well, you can always prove your axioms, no?

Can you actually test such an axiom within its system?

You and I are standing outside the system, and we can see the rather obvious flaws and stupidities of it, but can it be shown to be wrong from within?I understand that you are outside the system with me, but i just felt i had to argue against what you were saying, so when i said "your reasoning", i really meant "the reasoning of the believer". :D

[Lonewulf]

So? I'm only the messenger here, I didn't make this up!

Ooooh, so you aren't arguing?

Okay, nevermind. :D

It becomes "not evil" simply, and only, because of who does it. Thus proving that morality is absolute... NOT!

Mosquito - This became bigger than anticipated

Lol, good point.