Soule Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 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. of course it makes no sense. its why i'm not a christian. but again, its what christians would argue. and it is the christian arguement. god knows everything. so he knows objective morality absolutely. so we can trust that because we disagree with gods concept of objective morality, then it is not god who is wrong, it is the human concept of morality which is wrong. imo all religions are right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Shiva H. Vishnu Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 I suppose Soulio is at least correct in that any argument that accepts that bible god exists could only have "we are all totally screwed" as a paraphrasing of it's conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soule Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 *plonk* *tilt* haha having fun yet? I suppose Soulio is at least correct in that any argument that accepts that bible god exists could only have "we are all totally screwed" as a paraphrasing of it's conclusion. hahaha! indeed. and its soule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr_funkenstein Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 This whole thread reminds me of when I used to be a christian, arguing with my non-christian friends. I'd say ridiculous things like "but if you just assume god exists then it all makes sense!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soule Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 This whole thread reminds me of when I used to be a christian, arguing with my non-christian friends. I'd say ridiculous things like "but if you just assume god exists then it all makes sense!" cept... ya know... i'm not christian... and you have to assume god exists in this arguement. that was evidence number 2 in his proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr_funkenstein Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 This whole thread reminds me of when I used to be a christian, arguing with my non-christian friends. I'd say ridiculous things like "but if you just assume god exists then it all makes sense!" cept... ya know... i'm not christian... and you have to assume god exists in this arguement. that was evidence number 2 in his proof. I know you're not a christian... what part of what I said made you think I thought you were? I'm talking about the stupidity of the christian argument, my comment was unrelated to you personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soule Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 This whole thread reminds me of when I used to be a christian, arguing with my non-christian friends. I'd say ridiculous things like "but if you just assume god exists then it all makes sense!" cept... ya know... i'm not christian... and you have to assume god exists in this arguement. that was evidence number 2 in his proof. I know you're not a christian... what part of what I said made you think I thought you were? I'm talking about the stupidity of the christian argument, my comment was unrelated to you personally. i wasnt asking you to defend your stance, simply conversing XD even though the arguement is stupid and dosnt make much sense, its sound... unfortunately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr_funkenstein Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 even though the arguement is stupid and dosnt make much sense, its sound... unfortunately. It's only internally consistent if one accepts the notion of a god who is morally unjust while at the same time being morally just. I'd say that's pretty fucking far from sound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soule Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 even though the arguement is stupid and dosnt make much sense, its sound... unfortunately. It's only internally consistent if one accepts the notion of a god who is morally unjust while at the same time being morally just. I'd say that's pretty fucking far from sound. morally unjust by human definition. morally just by objective defintion. because god understands objective morality absolutely, that shows that if humans disagree with this morality, then it is not god who is wrong, but the understanding of morality by humans that is flawed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr_funkenstein Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 even though the arguement is stupid and dosnt make much sense, its sound... unfortunately. It's only internally consistent if one accepts the notion of a god who is morally unjust while at the same time being morally just. I'd say that's pretty fucking far from sound. morally unjust by human definition. morally just by objective defintion. because god understands objective morality absolutely, that shows that if humans disagree with this morality, then it is not god who is wrong, but the understanding of morality by humans that is flawed. And they say the gospel is simple enough to be understood by children. Anyway - who gets to define objective morality? If a theist asserts existence of a god and also claims that their god is the arbiter of objective morality, and ALSO claims that human morality is based on the god's objective morality, then it follows that humans should be able to determine whether or not god's morality is just or not. A simple commonsense test is all that is needed. If a majority of humans consider a particular act by god to be immoral, then either human morality is not derived from god's objective reality. or god is immoral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soule Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 even though the arguement is stupid and dosnt make much sense, its sound... unfortunately. It's only internally consistent if one accepts the notion of a god who is morally unjust while at the same time being morally just. I'd say that's pretty fucking far from sound. morally unjust by human definition. morally just by objective defintion. because god understands objective morality absolutely, that shows that if humans disagree with this morality, then it is not god who is wrong, but the understanding of morality by humans that is flawed. And they say the gospel is simple enough to be understood by children. Anyway - who gets to define objective morality? If a theist asserts existence of a god and also claims that their god is the arbiter of objective morality, and ALSO claims that human morality is based on the god's objective morality, then it follows that humans should be able to determine whether or not god's morality is just or not. A simple commonsense test is all that is needed. If a majority of humans consider a particular act by god to be immoral, then either human morality is not derived from god's objective reality. or god is immoral. no. multiple people can witness an objective situation and all of them can disagree on what actually happened. however the objective reality of what happend exists outside of the perspective of the individuals that experianced the situation. our perspective of what this objective morality is can differ from what the objective reality.... um... objectively.... is. so our disagreeing with god as to what morality truly is, is not evidence against gods existance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr_funkenstein Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 no. multiple people can witness an objective situation and all of them can disagree on what actually happened. however the objective reality of what happend exists outside of the perspective of the individuals that experianced the situation. our perspective of what this objective morality is can differ from what the objective reality.... um... objectively.... is. so our disagreeing with god as to what morality truly is, is not evidence against gods existance. You're talking about objective truth, not objective morality. But anyway - if objective morality changes according to what god does - then it's not objective at all, it's subjective. Objective morality must be internally consistent. But you're ignoring my point. My point is that another aspect of biblegod and the christian story is that human morality is derived from god's morality. Therefore we should be able to survey a large enough group of people and determine what a majority of humans think about a particular question of morality. If, as the bible claims, human morality is derived from god's morality, then whatever the majority of humans claim to be morally just should correspond with what god thinks is morally just. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soule Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 human morality would be derived from gods morality. however the intepretation would differ widely due to perspective of the masses. so a majority "vote" of what morality is wouldent prove anything. god this is annoying... not you, the whole quote thing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr_funkenstein Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 Well then if it can be shown elsewhere in the bible that biblegod deems it unjust to condemn someone incapable of knowing the difference between right and wrong then he'd be internally inconsistent with regard to his morals. But anyways - as far I'm concerned it's enough for any sane person not brainwashed by xian mumbo jumbo to see that biblegod is immoral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soule Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 Well then if it can be shown elsewhere in the bible that biblegod deems it unjust to condemn someone incapable of knowing the difference between right and wrong then he'd be internally inconsistent with regard to his morals. But anyways - as far I'm concerned it's enough for any sane person not brainwashed by xian mumbo jumbo to see that biblegod is immoral. very immoral by the human definitions of morality. i mean have you read numbers 31? thats some immoral shit right there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Japedo Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 morally unjust by human definition. morally just by objective defintion. because god understands objective morality absolutely, that shows that if humans disagree with this morality, then it is not god who is wrong, but the understanding of morality by humans that is flawed. I'm sorry but you're statements make my head hurt. One would judge god how by the basic laws/rules he gives us mere mortals to live by. He at the very least in order to be perfect needs to live by his own standards. We are not judging him by our faulty morals, we are judging him by his standards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted August 11, 2006 Author Share Posted August 11, 2006 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. Sorry, but this doesn't matter. It has nothing to do with justice, or with injustice. It has to do with coherency and logic. morally unjust by human definition. morally just by objective defintion. because god understands objective morality absolutely, that shows that if humans disagree with this morality, then it is not god who is wrong, but the understanding of morality by humans that is flawed. I'm sorry but you're statements make my head hurt. One would judge god how by the basic laws/rules he gives us mere mortals to live by. He at the very least in order to be perfect needs to live by his own standards. We are not judging him by our faulty morals, we are judging him by his standards. True. We don't have a faulty understanding of morals unless God gave us a faulty understanding of morals through the eating of the tree. Either way, this has nothing to do with present day, but with two people...Adam and Eve. You still haven't attacked my premises regarding moral responsibility, soule. You're just jumping around talking about judgements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soule Posted August 12, 2006 Share Posted August 12, 2006 morally unjust by human definition. morally just by objective defintion. because god understands objective morality absolutely, that shows that if humans disagree with this morality, then it is not god who is wrong, but the understanding of morality by humans that is flawed. I'm sorry but you're statements make my head hurt. One would judge god how by the basic laws/rules he gives us mere mortals to live by. He at the very least in order to be perfect needs to live by his own standards. We are not judging him by our faulty morals, we are judging him by his standards. do you say to a 6 year old "heres the keys to the new porche, have a blast!"? NO we say "you cant drive" while you yourself get behind the steering wheel and do 120 on the freeway. we are those 6 year olds, and god is the "heavenly father" who has a higher understanding of things than us 6 year olds do. not only is this "immorality" that you are speaking of moral acording to objective morality, but it is necessary for gods perfection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted August 12, 2006 Author Share Posted August 12, 2006 If you apply the idea that God only does what he desires, and what he desires is always Good...then you are rendering the term 'good' meaningless. Perfection is irrelevant and meaningless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soule Posted August 12, 2006 Share Posted August 12, 2006 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. Sorry, but this doesn't matter. It has nothing to do with justice, or with injustice. It has to do with coherency and logic. morally unjust by human definition. morally just by objective defintion. because god understands objective morality absolutely, that shows that if humans disagree with this morality, then it is not god who is wrong, but the understanding of morality by humans that is flawed. I'm sorry but you're statements make my head hurt. One would judge god how by the basic laws/rules he gives us mere mortals to live by. He at the very least in order to be perfect needs to live by his own standards. We are not judging him by our faulty morals, we are judging him by his standards. True. We don't have a faulty understanding of morals unless God gave us a faulty understanding of morals through the eating of the tree. Either way, this has nothing to do with present day, but with two people...Adam and Eve. You still haven't attacked my premises regarding moral responsibility, soule. You're just jumping around talking about judgements. in order to have a proper sense of what is just and what is not just, one must have an accurate sense of what is moraly right and wrong. my arguement is completely coherent. its just you that decides that because you dont like the answer, and you arnt willing to accept the christian god the way the bible describes it even though accepting the christian god exists is evidence 2 on your proof, that the arguement is incoherent. logically we would have to have a faulty understanding of morals. if god created everything, then god created morals too, thus has an infinite understanding of them. the reason that we seem to have a different concept of morality than god is because of free will. if god imposed upon us an absolute understanding of morals, and cut out the human interpretation of what we were trying to understand as morals, then that would interfere with free will which is something god aparently refuses to do. thus, according to the understanding of morality that we cannot comprehend, we cannot judge god acording to his actions to cast adam and eve out of the garden of eden. If you apply the idea that God only does what he desires, and what he desires is always Good...then you are rendering the term 'good' meaningless. Perfection is irrelevant and meaningless. you assume that god truly desires to do things. as theologan saint thomas aquinas i believe stated, god is pure action. thus the best way to understand god is to use words that best describe him. thus the word desire or want is attached to god in the bible. however god does not desire or want things as humans do. god dosnt desire to do good. god is good. pure good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soule Posted August 12, 2006 Share Posted August 12, 2006 If you apply the idea that God only does what he desires, and what he desires is always Good...then you are rendering the term 'good' meaningless. Perfection is irrelevant and meaningless. editing your post on me XD for shame. how is perfection irrelevant and meaningless? all you tried to show is that good was meaningless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted August 13, 2006 Share Posted August 13, 2006 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 Asimov, if you're trying to prove the literal interpretation is not possible, why didn't you just ask where is the actual tree of the knowledge of good and evil? That would be hard to validate literally, IMO. Then you could have asked about the talking serpent, and I'd like to see someone present a snake that talks. Obviously it is a metaphor. If you're asking about moral accountability, well we are all morally responsible rather we are ignorant or not. That was then and today too. I happen to think this genesis account is a fable of what distroys emotional health and drains the will to thrive in closest to the most appropriate way possible for those days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts