Argument From Moral Responsibility

[Soule]

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?

 

well if you want me to use the christian arguement, because god is infinte, he is beyond mortal comprehension. thus to aply any human logic to his nature would be taking god out of context. if you are going to use christian standards of god against him, then you need to take into context ALL of the standards. not just pick and choose.

 

though personally i hate saying this. in fact i hate arguing this point because i dont like christians. but its excelent debate practice. XD

[Japedo]

 

 

well if you want me to use the christian arguement, because god is infinte, he is beyond mortal comprehension. thus to aply any human logic to his nature would be taking god out of context. if you are going to use christian standards of god against him, then you need to take into context ALL of the standards. not just pick and choose.

 

though personally i hate saying this. in fact i hate arguing this point because i dont like christians. but its excelent debate practice. XD

 

How does God being infinite relate to Adam/eve's morality? They had zero sense of Right or wrong prior to eating the fruit. Having no concept of what wrong was they aren't morally responsible for eating the fruit is the point of the thread. How this turns in to Trout's and Infinite gods is beyond me?

[Soule]

 

 

well if you want me to use the christian arguement, because god is infinte, he is beyond mortal comprehension. thus to aply any human logic to his nature would be taking god out of context. if you are going to use christian standards of god against him, then you need to take into context ALL of the standards. not just pick and choose.

 

though personally i hate saying this. in fact i hate arguing this point because i dont like christians. but its excelent debate practice. XD

 

How does God being infinite relate to Adam/eve's morality? They had zero sense of Right or wrong prior to eating the fruit. Having no concept of what wrong was they aren't morally responsible for eating the fruit is the point of the thread. How this turns in to Trout's and Infinite gods is beyond me?

 

by saying this, one is saying that god is wrong. thus one is aplying mortal logic to an infinite god which is taking him out of context.

[Guest Shiva H. Vishnu]

]

 

by saying this, one is saying that god is wrong. thus one is aplying mortal logic to an infinite god which is taking him out of context.

 

Dude, this is the most facile bullshit I've ever heard. No one here accepts that god is infallible so find a new pony to fuck.

[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?

 

well if you want me to use the christian arguement, because god is infinte, he is beyond mortal comprehension. thus to aply any human logic to his nature would be taking god out of context. if you are going to use christian standards of god against him, then you need to take into context ALL of the standards. not just pick and choose.

 

though personally i hate saying this. in fact i hate arguing this point because i dont like christians. but its excelent debate practice. XD

 

Only if you need practice debating opponents who make no sense at all.

 

Essentially the argument you're using is this:

 

God's right... ok? He just is! Quit trying to understand him with your feeble human brain - he's bigger than that. You can't possibly understand him, so why bother thinking at all? Don't think. Don't question. Just accept what we say and everything will be just fine. Now go lie down and take another valium.

 

That's a non-argument. It's an attempt to remove god from the bounds of logic. Which would be quite convenient for christians but unfortunately it doesn't work that way.

[Soule]

 

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

 

 

according to this, then we are assuming that the christian god exists, with all traits that christians place upon him.

 

so to pick and choose which traits to go by and which traits to ignore does not make a sound arguement. and that is exactally what you are doing.

[Japedo]

 

 

by saying this, one is saying that god is wrong. thus one is aplying mortal logic to an infinite god which is taking him out of context.

 

WTF perhaps god didn't eat from the tree for all I know. You keep trying to sidestep the issue. The two Human beings we are talking about are Adam and his Rib eve. The story goes they had No knowledge of good and evil until they ate the apple.

 

If they didn't know what wrong was how can they be punished? It's tantamount to a 3 year old taking a stick of gum in the checkout line at the store and serving a life sentence in a Maxim security prison.

 

I fail to see what Context you keep talking about. It is what it is..

[Soule]

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?

 

well if you want me to use the christian arguement, because god is infinte, he is beyond mortal comprehension. thus to aply any human logic to his nature would be taking god out of context. if you are going to use christian standards of god against him, then you need to take into context ALL of the standards. not just pick and choose.

 

though personally i hate saying this. in fact i hate arguing this point because i dont like christians. but its excelent debate practice. XD

 

Only if you need practice debating opponents who make no sense at all.

 

Essentially the argument you're using is this:

 

God's right... ok? He just is! Quit trying to understand him with your feeble human brain - he's bigger than that. You can't possibly understand him, so why bother thinking at all? Don't think. Don't question. Just accept what we say and everything will be just fine. Now go lie down and take another valium.

 

That's a non-argument. It's an attempt to remove god from the bounds of logic. Which would be quite convenient for christians but unfortunately it doesn't work that way.

 

but you must think of god this way if your whole argument is based on the christian idea of god existing. otherwise the arguement itself is defeated. but since it is defeated anyways, i guess it dosnt really matter.

[Guest Shiva H. Vishnu]

 

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

 

 

according to this, then we are assuming that the christian god exists, with all traits that christians place upon him.

 

so to pick and choose which traits to go by and which traits to ignore does not make a sound arguement. and that is exactally what you are doing.

 

 

So then, your point is that no logical argument can be made in which we accept the idea of the christian god and yet reach a critical conclusion? Because he's above logic? Are you satisfied with this? Does this impress you as effective logic?

[Soule]

 

 

by saying this, one is saying that god is wrong. thus one is aplying mortal logic to an infinite god which is taking him out of context.

 

WTF perhaps god didn't eat from the tree for all I know. You keep trying to sidestep the issue. The two Human beings we are talking about are Adam and his Rib eve. The story goes they had No knowledge of good and evil until they ate the apple.

 

If they didn't know what wrong was how can they be punished? It's tantamount to a 3 year old taking a stick of gum in the checkout line at the store and serving a life sentence in a Maxim security prison.

 

I fail to see what Context you keep talking about. It is what it is..

 

are you saying god is wrong in this decision to punish humans?

[Japedo]

]

 

are you saying god is wrong in this decision to punish humans?

 

According to my moral code he is, perhaps that makes me a better judge then the god in the story.

[Soule]

 

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

 

 

according to this, then we are assuming that the christian god exists, with all traits that christians place upon him.

 

so to pick and choose which traits to go by and which traits to ignore does not make a sound arguement. and that is exactally what you are doing.

 

 

So then, your point is that no logical argument can be made in which we accept the idea of the christian god and yet reach a critical conclusion? Because he's above logic? Are you satisfied with this? Does this impress you as effective logic?

 

because the christian idea of god is that he is incomprehensible in his actions, thoughts, and reason, yes.

and again. no i am not satisfied with this. its why im not a christian. but if you are going to base your logic off the christian god existing, then you must accept ALL TRAITS OF HIS EXISTANCE THAT CHRISTIANS PLACE UPON HIM AS EXISTING AS WELL. and this includes his existing infinitely and outside of our comprehension.

[Asimov]

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?

 

well if you want me to use the christian arguement, because god is infinte, he is beyond mortal comprehension. thus to aply any human logic to his nature would be taking god out of context. if you are going to use christian standards of god against him, then you need to take into context ALL of the standards. not just pick and choose.

 

though personally i hate saying this. in fact i hate arguing this point because i dont like christians. but its excelent debate practice. XD

 

Soule...if someone believes in a Christian God then they have to believe in a form of Objective Morality. That doesn't change....hence the term objective.

 

Logic is objective, soule.

[dr_funkenstein]

but you must think of god this way if your whole argument is based on the christian idea of god existing. otherwise the arguement itself is defeated. but since it is defeated anyways, i guess it dosnt really matter.

 

I can sort of see where you're coming from, but what you're arguing is that since christians essentially say that god is inherently morally right, then to assume the christian god exists at the beginning of your argument is to by definition exclude any possibility of your argument concluding in god being morally wrong.

 

The whole point is to show that the christian god is internally inconsistent. So if you can show logically that god acted immorally, and yet christians say that god is inherently moral, then you have a contraction. If you have a contraction, then biblegod doesn't exist.

[Soule]

]

 

are you saying god is wrong in this decision to punish humans?

 

According to my moral code he is, perhaps that makes me a better judge then the god in the story.

 

then you are aplying your morals to god. which is taking him out of context.

[Japedo]

 

 

then you are aplying your morals to god. which is taking him out of context.

 

No, I argue if I'm more moral then the god in the story he is not greater then me and therefore not god.

[Soule]

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?

 

well if you want me to use the christian arguement, because god is infinte, he is beyond mortal comprehension. thus to aply any human logic to his nature would be taking god out of context. if you are going to use christian standards of god against him, then you need to take into context ALL of the standards. not just pick and choose.

 

though personally i hate saying this. in fact i hate arguing this point because i dont like christians. but its excelent debate practice. XD

 

Soule...if someone believes in a Christian God then they have to believe in a form of Objective Morality. That doesn't change....hence the term objective.

 

Logic is objective, soule.

 

acording to the fact that morals have changed over the thousands of years that humans have been in existance, then that proves that if there is an objective morality, then our understanding of it is flawed. so even if there is an objective morality,the morality that we as humans understand is not objective.

[dr_funkenstein]

]

 

are you saying god is wrong in this decision to punish humans?

 

According to my moral code he is, perhaps that makes me a better judge then the god in the story.

 

then you are aplying your morals to god. which is taking him out of context.

 

If that's the case, then biblegod gets to treat himself as a special case wherein morality can be dynamically redefined such that he is never immoral.

 

If christians need to resort to that kind of a god then they've defeated themselves from the get-go.

[Guest Shiva H. Vishnu]

 

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

 

 

according to this, then we are assuming that the christian god exists, with all traits that christians place upon him.

 

so to pick and choose which traits to go by and which traits to ignore does not make a sound arguement. and that is exactally what you are doing.

 

 

So then, your point is that no logical argument can be made in which we accept the idea of the christian god and yet reach a critical conclusion? Because he's above logic? Are you satisfied with this? Does this impress you as effective logic?

 

because the christian idea of god is that he is incomprehensible in his actions, thoughts, and reason, yes.

and again. no i am not satisfied with this. its why im not a christian. but if you are going to base your logic off the christian god existing, then you must accept ALL TRAITS OF HIS EXISTANCE THAT CHRISTIANS PLACE UPON HIM AS EXISTING AS WELL. and this includes his existing infinitely and outside of our comprehension.

 

We can still ascertain that, even though his behavior is always correct because of his sovereignty, his very nature is strenuously illogical and at odds with everything we know to be good and worthy. If this is the argumentative tactic employed by god's defenders then it should hardly persuade anyone not already in the grips of religious ideology. I wouldn't be so excited to use it in an effort to polish your debate skills. It'll only score you a win in the company of christians. Call it a pyrrhic victory.

[Soule]

 

 

then you are aplying your morals to god. which is taking him out of context.

 

No, I argue if I'm more moral then the god in the story he is not greater then me and therefore not god.

 

then he wouldent exist, and the entire arguement is moot as you arnt accepting the christian existance of god.

 

]

 

are you saying god is wrong in this decision to punish humans?

 

According to my moral code he is, perhaps that makes me a better judge then the god in the story.

 

then you are aplying your morals to god. which is taking him out of context.

 

If that's the case, then biblegod gets to treat himself as a special case wherein morality can be dynamically redefined such that he is never immoral.

 

If christians need to resort to that kind of a god then they've defeated themselves from the get-go.

 

yep pretty much. but that is their logic.

 

 

 

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

 

 

according to this, then we are assuming that the christian god exists, with all traits that christians place upon him.

 

so to pick and choose which traits to go by and which traits to ignore does not make a sound arguement. and that is exactally what you are doing.

 

 

So then, your point is that no logical argument can be made in which we accept the idea of the christian god and yet reach a critical conclusion? Because he's above logic? Are you satisfied with this? Does this impress you as effective logic?

 

because the christian idea of god is that he is incomprehensible in his actions, thoughts, and reason, yes.

and again. no i am not satisfied with this. its why im not a christian. but if you are going to base your logic off the christian god existing, then you must accept ALL TRAITS OF HIS EXISTANCE THAT CHRISTIANS PLACE UPON HIM AS EXISTING AS WELL. and this includes his existing infinitely and outside of our comprehension.

 

We can still ascertain that, even though his behavior is always correct because of his sovereignty, his very nature is strenuously illogical and at odds with everything we know to be good and worthy. If this is the argumentative tactic employed by god's defenders then it should hardly persuade anyone not already in the grips of religious ideology. I wouldn't be so excited to use it in an effort to polish your debate skills. It'll only score you a win in the company of christians. Call it a pyrrhic victory.

 

 

it still disproves the arguement at hand. hes picking and choosing the traits of god to go by and which ones not to.

 

but you must think of god this way if your whole argument is based on the christian idea of god existing. otherwise the arguement itself is defeated. but since it is defeated anyways, i guess it dosnt really matter.

 

I can sort of see where you're coming from, but what you're arguing is that since christians essentially say that god is inherently morally right, then to assume the christian god exists at the beginning of your argument is to by definition exclude any possibility of your argument concluding in god being morally wrong.

 

The whole point is to show that the christian god is internally inconsistent. So if you can show logically that god acted immorally, and yet christians say that god is inherently moral, then you have a contraction. If you have a contraction, then biblegod doesn't exist.

 

technically it just shows that our understanding of objective morality is flawed.

[Guest Shiva H. Vishnu]

I suppose the argument would be better served if it was rearranged with the conclusion being that bible god can't exist because the events in Genesis are incongruous with the idea of a just and loving god. Just shuffle the cards so you don't accept the existence of bible god in your premise. In any case, the argument is an effecvtive rhetorical device no matter how you word it, because the audience will clearly see that the holiness of "god" is smoke and mirrors.

[dr_funkenstein]

technically it just shows that our understanding of objective morality is flawed.

 

But god's isn't, right?

 

Show me a god who thinks it's morally acceptable to punish someone for committing a crime they had no capacity to even be aware that they were committing and I'll show you a morally reprehensible deity.

 

Show me a supposedly always moral god who thinks it's morally acceptable to punish someone for committing a crime they had no capacity to even be aware that they were committing and *poof* - the god disappears!

[Asimov]

acording to the fact that morals have changed over the thousands of years that humans have been in existance, then that proves that if there is an objective morality, then our understanding of it is flawed. so even if there is an objective morality,the morality that we as humans understand is not objective.

 

It doesn't matter, if God exists and he prescribes a system of behaviour that requires a tree of knowledge of good and evil, then there is an objective moral code.

 

Since Adam and Eve were not aware of this objective moral code, nor even aware of the concept of good or evil, then they are not morally responsible for their actions. Their actions were essentially amoral.

 

Good and Evil revolve around intent. Since Adam was not aware of good or evil he could not intend to DO good or evil. Hence he was neither!

 

 

 

It's just my opinion.

 

Is it very true?

[Japedo]

 

 

then he wouldent exist, and the entire arguement is moot as you arnt accepting the christian existance of god.

Soule, wow you want to talk about twisted logic. How is one to decipher which god is the real one if all gods have the same trust me but don't question bs attached to it? If simple questions of Justice and fairness are tools we aren't allowed to discern what is right or wrong then how the heck is one to know which one is really right?

 

 

People are spoon fed the Adam and his rib eve story. If my mere human questions and shed a light of doubt on the story then the story is BS even going by the standard the "GOD IS INFALLIBLE" One would have to argue that the story is wrong but god must have been right somewhere. The human interpreting the story got it wrong. You don't give any leeway for wrong interpretations or anything.

 

You want to have a debate with the notion.

 

God is always right

Adam and eve had no concept of wrong doing

Adam and eve took the apple

Adam and eve and all of human kind are punished till the end of time due to the apple.

God is right.

 

It makes no sense and is ludicrous that any thinking person would take this stance.

[Soule]

I'm just an outsider here, but it seems to me that soule is some sort of freshman who thinks he invented the education process. He alternates between his own words, which are poorly-constructed misspellings and grammatically incorrect bullshit that looks like it came off a chat room - and words that are well-put together, obviously cut and pasted from somewhere, like a textbook or a website.

 

This is the kind of dishonesty up with which you should not put.

 

It's just my opinion.

 

thankfully the fact that i never use capitals, and that if i copy pasted then there would be capitals, proves that i am not copy pasting. though nice try.

 

and how did you know i hang out in chat rooms?! XD

 

technically it just shows that our understanding of objective morality is flawed.

 

But god's isn't, right?

 

Show me a god who thinks it's morally acceptable to punish someone for committing a crime they had no capacity to even be aware that they were committing and I'll show you a morally reprehensible deity.

 

Show me a supposedly always moral god who thinks it's morally acceptable to punish someone for committing a crime they had no capacity to even be aware that they were committing and *poof* - the god disappears!

 

no its humans who arnt right for understanding objective morality which god defines.

 

acording to the fact that morals have changed over the thousands of years that humans have been in existance, then that proves that if there is an objective morality, then our understanding of it is flawed. so even if there is an objective morality,the morality that we as humans understand is not objective.

 

It doesn't matter, if God exists and he prescribes a system of behaviour that requires a tree of knowledge of good and evil, then there is an objective moral code.

 

Since Adam and Eve were not aware of this objective moral code, nor even aware of the concept of good or evil, then they are not morally responsible for their actions. Their actions were essentially amoral.

 

Good and Evil revolve around intent. Since Adam was not aware of good or evil he could not intend to DO good or evil. Hence he was neither!

 

 

 

It's just my opinion.

 

Is it very true?

 

oh but it does matter. because god understans objective morality completely, and humans disagree with his morality, that shows that the human understanding of this morality is flawed.