Argument From Moral Responsibility

[Asimov]

Our premise':

1A: Moral Responsibility is directed to those who are aware of the concept of morality and are therefore making a choice to make moral or immoral actions based on that awareness.

1B: A being who has no concept of morality is not morally responsible for his actions.

2. If the Christian God exists, then Genesis is a true account of why we need Jesus.

3. If Genesis is a true account, then the events in the Garden actually happened.

4. There was a Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

5. If Adam and Eve were not allowed to eat of the Tree, then they had no concept of morality.

 

Conclusion:

C: Adam and Eve were not morally responsible. (from 1a and 1b and 5).

 

QED

[Soule]

Our premise':

1A: Moral Responsibility is directed to those who are aware of the concept of morality and are therefore making a choice to make moral or immoral actions based on that awareness.

1B: A being who has no concept of morality is not morally responsible for his actions.

2. If the Christian God exists, then Genesis is a true account of why we need Jesus.

3. If Genesis is a true account, then the events in the Garden actually happened.

4. There was a Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

5. If Adam and Eve were not allowed to eat of the Tree, then they had no concept of morality.

 

Conclusion:

C: Adam and Eve were not morally responsible. (from 1a and 1b and 5).

 

QED

 

so are you saying god made a wrong judgement?

[Kuroikaze]

 

so are you saying god made a wrong judgement?

 

I think the general concensus is that in this set up god punished them for something they could not have know was wrong.

 

 

Therefore the christian god is a tool.

[Soule]

 

so are you saying god made a wrong judgement?

 

I think the general concensus is that in this set up god punished them for something they could not have know was wrong.

 

 

Therefore the christian god is a tool.

 

so we can safely say that he is judging god with his standards of morality.

[dr_funkenstein]

so we can safely say that he is judging god with his standards of morality.

 

Are you saying that god's morality is not bound by the rules of logic?

 

If there was no possibility for the humans to even be aware of their wrongdoing in the eyes of god, how can there be a possibility for god's judgement to be justified?

[Soule]

so we can safely say that he is judging god with his standards of morality.

 

Are you saying that god's morality is not bound by the rules of logic?

 

If there was no possibility for the humans to even be aware of their wrongdoing in the eyes of god, how can there be a possibility for god's judgement to be justified?

 

i havent said anything yet.

 

anyways. would you say a trout is fast?

[dr_funkenstein]

anyways. would you say a trout is fast?

 

Which particular trout? And fast according to whom? The perception of speed only makes sense within a frame of reference (relative velocities and all that).

 

Logic, on the other hand, requires no such frame of reference.

[Soule]

anyways. would you say a trout is fast?

 

Which particular trout? And fast according to whom? The perception of speed only makes sense within a frame of reference (relative velocities and all that).

 

Logic, on the other hand, requires no such frame of reference.

 

then a full grown rainbow trout. and instead of fast, quickly in relation to human movement.

[dr_funkenstein]

anyways. would you say a trout is fast?

 

Which particular trout? And fast according to whom? The perception of speed only makes sense within a frame of reference (relative velocities and all that).

 

Logic, on the other hand, requires no such frame of reference.

 

then a full grown rainbow trout. and instead of fast, quickly in relation to human movement.

 

African or european? And is the trout laden or unladen?

[Soule]

anyways. would you say a trout is fast?

 

Which particular trout? And fast according to whom? The perception of speed only makes sense within a frame of reference (relative velocities and all that).

 

Logic, on the other hand, requires no such frame of reference.

 

then a full grown rainbow trout. and instead of fast, quickly in relation to human movement.

 

African or european? And is the trout laden or unladen?

 

quit dodging the question and answer it.

[Guest Shiva H. Vishnu]

The very question you're asking was an attempt to dodge this question....

 

Are you saying that god's morality is not bound by the rules of logic?

 

If there was no possibility for the humans to even be aware of their wrongdoing in the eyes of god, how can there be a possibility for god's judgement to be justified?

 

Physician heal thyself.

[Soule]

The very question you're asking was an attempt to dodge this question....

 

Are you saying that god's morality is not bound by the rules of logic?

 

If there was no possibility for the humans to even be aware of their wrongdoing in the eyes of god, how can there be a possibility for god's judgement to be justified?

 

Physician heal thyself.

 

no. i answerd that question by saying "i havent said anythign yet"

 

now if you will let me continue, would you say a full grown rainbow trout moves quickly in relation to human movement?

[dr_funkenstein]

anyways. would you say a trout is fast?

 

Which particular trout? And fast according to whom? The perception of speed only makes sense within a frame of reference (relative velocities and all that).

 

Logic, on the other hand, requires no such frame of reference.

 

then a full grown rainbow trout. and instead of fast, quickly in relation to human movement.

 

African or european? And is the trout laden or unladen?

 

quit dodging the question and answer it.

 

Ok I'll answer your question. I would not say a trout is fast. I would say a trout is faster than me if I tried to beat it in a swimming race.

[Guest Shiva H. Vishnu]

The very question you're asking was an attempt to dodge this question....

 

Are you saying that god's morality is not bound by the rules of logic?

 

If there was no possibility for the humans to even be aware of their wrongdoing in the eyes of god, how can there be a possibility for god's judgement to be justified?

 

Physician heal thyself.

 

no. i answerd that question by saying "i havent said anythign yet"

 

now if you will let me continue, would you say a full grown rainbow trout moves quickly in relation to human movement?

 

There are 2 questions there, Soulio. You didn't answer either of them.

[Soule]

The very question you're asking was an attempt to dodge this question....

 

Are you saying that god's morality is not bound by the rules of logic?

 

If there was no possibility for the humans to even be aware of their wrongdoing in the eyes of god, how can there be a possibility for god's judgement to be justified?

 

Physician heal thyself.

 

no. i answerd that question by saying "i havent said anythign yet"

 

now if you will let me continue, would you say a full grown rainbow trout moves quickly in relation to human movement?

 

There are 2 questions there, Soulio. You didn't answer either of them.

 

the second question was based on the first question having an answer of yes. since it did not, the second question can be ignored. however, if you would continue and answer my question, then the second question will be answered anyways.

 

does a full grown trout move quickly in relation to human movements?

[dr_funkenstein]

I've answered your question - read up. Now where are you going with this?

[Soule]

I've answered your question - read up. Now where are you going with this?

 

ah ok. thanks diddnt see it.

 

ok so we can now take that out of context and put the trout on dry land and say that you would then beat the trout at a footrace and it does not move quickly.

 

the whole logic behind this question is a non sequiter.

[Guest Shiva H. Vishnu]

I've answered your question - read up. Now where are you going with this?

 

ah ok. thanks diddnt see it.

 

ok so we can now take that out of context and put the trout on dry land and say that you would then beat the trout at a footrace and it does not move quickly.

 

the whole logic behind this question is a non sequiter.

 

 

You must be a freakin genius.

[Soule]

I've answered your question - read up. Now where are you going with this?

 

ah ok. thanks diddnt see it.

 

ok so we can now take that out of context and put the trout on dry land and say that you would then beat the trout at a footrace and it does not move quickly.

 

the whole logic behind this question is a non sequiter.

 

 

You must be a freakin genius.

 

no i've just used the exact same arguement against god with a philosophy professor.

 

sure you can take god and put him in a situation completely different from his natural condition and judge him, but its not a logically sound argument.

[dr_funkenstein]

I've answered your question - read up. Now where are you going with this?

 

ah ok. thanks diddnt see it.

 

ok so we can now take that out of context and put the trout on dry land and say that you would then beat the trout at a footrace and it does not move quickly.

 

the whole logic behind this question is a non sequiter.

 

Did you seriously waste our time on that piece of nonsense? I'll tell you what the real non sequitur is - that somehow the fact that you failed to word your question explicitly enough has any bearing whatsoever on the logic used in the original argument.

 

*sigh*

 

Anyway back to the topic at hand - yes I've often thought that without a moral compass supposedly given the humans by eating the tree of knowledge of good and evil, that it makes no sense for them to be punished for committing evil. The only evil in the whole scenario is the judgement itself.

[Guest Shiva H. Vishnu]

I've answered your question - read up. Now where are you going with this?

 

ah ok. thanks diddnt see it.

 

ok so we can now take that out of context and put the trout on dry land and say that you would then beat the trout at a footrace and it does not move quickly.

 

the whole logic behind this question is a non sequiter.

 

 

You must be a freakin genius.

 

no i've just used the exact same arguement against god with a philosophy professor.

 

sure you can take god and put him in a situation completely different from his natural condition and judge him, but its not a logically sound argument.

 

You haven't qualified a single word of what you're saying with anything but a ridiculous reference to the speed of a beached trout. I'm sure your philosophy professor charmed the pants offa you with his trout analogy, but I'm unimpressed.

[Asimov]

Our premise':

1A: Moral Responsibility is directed to those who are aware of the concept of morality and are therefore making a choice to make moral or immoral actions based on that awareness.

1B: A being who has no concept of morality is not morally responsible for his actions.

2. If the Christian God exists, then Genesis is a true account of why we need Jesus.

3. If Genesis is a true account, then the events in the Garden actually happened.

4. There was a Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

5. If Adam and Eve were not allowed to eat of the Tree, then they had no concept of morality.

 

Conclusion:

C: Adam and Eve were not morally responsible. (from 1a and 1b and 5).

 

QED

 

so are you saying god made a wrong judgement?

 

According to logic, yes.

 

Do you have an issue with my premises?

[Soule]

I've answered your question - read up. Now where are you going with this?

 

ah ok. thanks diddnt see it.

 

ok so we can now take that out of context and put the trout on dry land and say that you would then beat the trout at a footrace and it does not move quickly.

 

the whole logic behind this question is a non sequiter.

 

 

You must be a freakin genius.

 

no i've just used the exact same arguement against god with a philosophy professor.

 

sure you can take god and put him in a situation completely different from his natural condition and judge him, but its not a logically sound argument.

 

You haven't qualified a single word of what you're saying with anything but a ridiculous reference to the speed of a beached trout. I'm sure your philosophy professor charmed the pants offa you with his trout analogy, but I'm unimpressed.

 

meh whatever falicy it is that you take things out of context in. the question wouldent stand in formal debate because it takes the nature of god out of context. its like asking "can god make a rock so heavy even he himself cant lift it?"

[Guest Shiva H. Vishnu]

 

meh whatever falicy it is that you take things out of context in. the question wouldent stand in formal debate because it takes the nature of god out of context. its like asking "can god make a rock so heavy even he himself cant lift it?"

 

Your philosophy prof convinced you that this is true. Are you prepared to convince someone else? Or did you just aquiesce that he was smarter than you without understanding the problem well enough to communicate it to others (beyond your wonderful trout analogy, of course)?

[dr_funkenstein]

meh whatever falicy it is that you take things out of context in. the question wouldent stand in formal debate because it takes the nature of god out of context. its like asking "can god make a rock so heavy even he himself cant lift it?"

 

Care to explain how the argument takes the nature of god out of context?