Astreja Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 I didn't say that God didn't need to be created because he is invisible, I said immaterial, there is a difference. What, exactly, is the difference between 'immaterial' and 'nonexistent'? The only thing that springs to mind is "God is an idea." We have physical laws to explain that material things require a cause; however, we don't the same laws for immaterial things. Logical fallacy: Special pleading. John 4:24, "God is spirit" and spirits, by definition are immaterial. The Bible is not acceptable as evidence here. So, I suppose that you have a naturalistic explanation for the existence and origin of the universe. Red herring fallacy. If you deny that God created the universe, you need to come up with an alternative that makes both scientific and philosophical sense. There are other creation myths, LNC. Why should we believe yours in particular? Again, you can rebel against something that you believe doesn't exist, because, your beliefs don't define reality. You may have false beliefs and those false beliefs won't excuse you. A god that condemns people for eternity for honest disbelief in the absence of credible evidence? Disgusting. So, are you saying that rebellion should be tolerated? If such 'rebellion' is incapable of doing the slightest injury to your hypothetical god... Yes. Absolutely. Your legalistic morass would be like Me setting one of My cats on fire because he p*ssed on My socks. I am quite capable of overlooking egregious and stinky affronts to My person rather than resorting to torture. (snips large Godwinesque passage and sighs heavily) Now, regarding your statement about logic. Sure, God is bound by logic because that is part of his immutable nature. Existential fallacy and unsupported assertion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightflight Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 That does not follow. We can have both a sin nature and be free agents. Having a sin nature just means that we have an inclination toward sin, not that we are bound to act according to that inclination. So you're saying that God creates the game, creates the rules, then hands his "creations" loaded dice. In a casino, this God would be arrested. "Your code begins by damning man as evil, then demands that he practice a good which it defines as impossible for him to practice." Ayn Rand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeday Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 Astreja, Red herring Fallacy? they didn't teach this one in intro to philosophy, had to look this one up. Nice. Having read most of the earliest creation myths, they seem very outlandish, especially the Hindu ones which predate the Genesis account. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 Can you separate commands and nature as you are supposing. A virtuous God would have virtuous commands I would think. I feel this resolves the problem simply in my opinion. Wouldn't that mean that virtue is something independent of God? Then why do we need God to explain virtue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefranden Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 This is a question that theists have answered long ago. Euthyphro is a faulty dilemma in that God neither merely commands that which is good nor is subject to some sort of good outside of himself. The good is defined by God's immutable and eternal nature, as I have explained to other posters on this site. God's commands are a reflection of that eternal and immutable nature so they are not arbitrary in nature, nor are they reflective of some reality outside of him, for if that were the case, then that would be God. I hope that is clear to you, feel free to ask questions if you have them. Well it's true that theologians make a lot up a lot of goop under the umbrella of I have thought of an explanation therefore it is explained like the yes, no, maybe explanation of prayer. The problem with that explanation of prayer is that it works equally well with a brick. I can only accept your explanation if it also includes the integration of evil into God's nature, else how would his command to kill babies be explained, unless of course you consider killing babies a good thing. Surely not killing babies must be one of these moral absolutes you keep harping about. But apparently not because God kills babies or commands them to be killed. IMHO God's anger over offering babies to Molach is not out of concern for babies, but out of jealousy that Molach got the babies and Yahweh didn't. Yahweh likes the smell of burning meat as much as the next god. The whole point of the baby question is that Good is obviously not an immutable part of Gods nature. By the way your explanation is the epitome of abitrary: 1: depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law <the manner of punishment is arbitrary>2 a: not restrained or limited in the exercise of power : ruling by absolute authority <an arbitrary government> b: marked by or resulting from the unrestrained and often tyrannical exercise of power <protection from arbitrary arrest and detention>3 a: based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something <an arbitrary standard> <take any arbitrary positive number> <arbitrary division of historical studies into watertight compartments — A. J. Toynbee> b: existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will <when a task is not seen in a meaningful context it is experienced as being arbitrary — Nehemiah Jordan> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agnosticator Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 Agnosticator:Faith (religious) is belief that does not require evidence or proof. Normal faith is based upon the ability to verify it objectively. Your religious belief is based upon reason rather than faith as you mentioned faith as it is used everyday as opposed to religious faith. Also, you ignore that the basis of morality has been stated as being objective in previous posts. LNC: OK, so when you put your faith in an airline to fly you to some destination, it doesn't matter whether that airline is reputable? I mean, you are putting your faith in that airline, so surely you don't need evidence that they can get you there safely. I didn't know that there were different categories of faith. Can you let me know which school of philosophy teaches such distinctions? Religious "faith" is not "trust". Many people use the term "faith" in non-religious contexts everyday. Maybe that is wrong to do as it takes away the religious definition. So, let's get picky and say I took it out of context. I will refer to "trust" in place of "faith" (belief without proof or evidence), since I don't possess "faith". Faith does not equal trust, as trust requires evidence and is verifiable. LNC:I didn't ignore those attempts at explanations, I have shown them to be faulty explanations. Stating and proving are two different things. I have proof that humans and animals exist. Morality exists because they do and this is verifiable through observation of altruism and cooperation displayed among animals and between humans. The type of morals they adhere to is being argued, but morality begins with them being alive. Since you cannot prove or disprove god's existence, you have no verifiable basis for morality coming from god. You have shown nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefranden Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 And yet Christianity teaches us that we are bound by a "sin nature". So it posits no free will either. That does not follow. We can have both a sin nature and be free agents. Having a sin nature just means that we have an inclination toward sin, not that we are bound to act according to that inclination. I see. Then your righteousness is not filthy rags, right? Then not all have sinned in spite of what Paul says, right? Some people don't need a savior* because they can not act according to that inclination and Paul is wrong. Is this what you are saying? If you still say that all have sinned then you have no evidence for your inclination theory. One might wonder what the slope of this inclination is and if the surface is greased. *Are you a sinner? You must be, because you need a savior. I'm not a sinner. I choose the good. I don't have sex with menstruating women just like Zeke says. I'm inclined to have sex with menstruating women, but I choose not to and so far I've been successful. I don't need a savior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 This thread is becoming a bit too large. It's really popular, one can see that. However, we're trying to keep the threads at 15 pages max, and the topic of this thread has gone a long way from the original topic, so I'm closing this thread to force the questions/discussion to be opened in some other (new) thread. The way I see this going is a debate between LNC and board members, and it seems to be multiple topics simultaneous. I'll open a new discussion and let you guys continue there. Hans link to new thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts