Battle Talk ~ BR IX
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Balder
New member
This presupposes that violent and painful punishment is the only way to render "justice." And in my view, that presupposition is questionable. It also overlooks the fact that there might be any number of other ways for a loving God "ultimate being" to demonstrate love and "balance" or "justify" the order of the world.
I have not blasphemed God. I was pointing out your fallacy of thinking. You said "If the FSM is not love (as the Living God is love), then she is disqualified from being the ontological basis for love." I was pointing out that since you base your definition of love on the attribute of God, then of course FSM doesn't qualify as the basis of love as defined by God. But if a believer based their definition of love on an attribute of FSM, then FSM would clearly qualify as an ontological basis.
My faith does not require intellectual prostitution.
mighty_duck
New member
SS,
I am not sure if the problem is my inability to convey the idea, or your inability to grasp it. I am not asking why The Christian God makes sense, I am asking why every other permutation of a god makes no sense. That is a difficult position to refute, when a fake god is also all-powerful.
You have not backed up this premise that you claim refutes the FSM. Your premise goes something like this:
If A exists in the world, then A is part of the creators nature.
For example:
If morality exists, then the FSM must be moral.
If love exists, then the FSM must be love (that is almost nonsensical, all loving may be more appropriate.).
I have explained time and again that this premise is unwarranted, as an all powerful creator can create something that is very different from their nature. The purpose of the FSM is to show how wrong your arguments are, since they apply equally well to a very silly creator.
I thank you for this exchange, but it has become mutually useless. Maybe someone else can explain it to you better than I can.
I am not sure if the problem is my inability to convey the idea, or your inability to grasp it. I am not asking why The Christian God makes sense, I am asking why every other permutation of a god makes no sense. That is a difficult position to refute, when a fake god is also all-powerful.
You have not backed up this premise that you claim refutes the FSM. Your premise goes something like this:
If A exists in the world, then A is part of the creators nature.
For example:
If morality exists, then the FSM must be moral.
If love exists, then the FSM must be love (that is almost nonsensical, all loving may be more appropriate.).
I have explained time and again that this premise is unwarranted, as an all powerful creator can create something that is very different from their nature. The purpose of the FSM is to show how wrong your arguments are, since they apply equally well to a very silly creator.
I thank you for this exchange, but it has become mutually useless. Maybe someone else can explain it to you better than I can.
mighty_duck
New member
SS,
I am not sure if the problem is my inability to convey the idea, or your inability to grasp it. I am not asking why The Christian God makes sense, I am asking why every other permutation of a god makes no sense. That is a difficult position to refute, when a fake god is also all-powerful.
You have not backed up this premise that you claim refutes the FSM. Your premise goes something like this:
If A exists in the world, then A is part of the creators nature.
For example:
If morality exists, then the FSM must be moral.
If love exists, then the FSM must be love (that is almost nonsensical, all loving may be more appropriate.).
I have explained time and again that this premise is unwarranted, as an all powerful creator can create something that is very different from their nature. The purpose of the FSM is to show how wrong your arguments are, since they apply equally well to a very silly creator.
I thank you for this exchange, but it has become mutually useless. Maybe someone else can explain it to you better than I can.
I am not sure if the problem is my inability to convey the idea, or your inability to grasp it. I am not asking why The Christian God makes sense, I am asking why every other permutation of a god makes no sense. That is a difficult position to refute, when a fake god is also all-powerful.
You have not backed up this premise that you claim refutes the FSM. Your premise goes something like this:
If A exists in the world, then A is part of the creators nature.
For example:
If morality exists, then the FSM must be moral.
If love exists, then the FSM must be love (that is almost nonsensical, all loving may be more appropriate.).
I have explained time and again that this premise is unwarranted, as an all powerful creator can create something that is very different from their nature. The purpose of the FSM is to show how wrong your arguments are, since they apply equally well to a very silly creator.
I thank you for this exchange, but it has become mutually useless. Maybe someone else can explain it to you better than I can.
lovemeorhateme
Well-known member
Some deep discussion going on here. Keep it up guys, this is interesting!
*Gets Popcorn*
*Gets Popcorn*
sentientsynth
New member
To profane means to make common. Johnny has just put the Holy Bible on common playing ground as an inexistent message from the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Had this not come from a Christian, I wouldn't have responded in such a way.avatar382 said:
SS
sentientsynth
New member
Such as?Balder said:
m_d,
It's been stimulating. You've made some good points, and put me to hard thinking. I find it telling, though, that you would rather defend the Flying Spaghetti Monster versus your professed atheistic worldview.
SS
mighty_duck
New member
stratnerd's 4th post
stratnerd's 4th post
While Stratnerd's 4th post lacked the punch of his previous one, it began cutting in to Jim's core argument (which is really irrelevant to this debate). Stratnerd asked a lot of the questions that have been popping up in this thread, which should help make Jim's case clearer, and focus back on the topic at hand.
1. I would like to see the debaters agree on what science is. Stratnerd has made this point in the last two posts, that science without the assumption of MN is worthless. But he has not put Jim in the corner of accepting this argument. Jim is trying to dance around the issue because it would kill his whole argument.
2. Makes a great point about how under Jim's definiton of science, almost anything can be considered science. Strangely, a broad definition actually hurts Jim's case, so it is in his best interests to narrow it down.
3. Jim never seperates his two presuppositions - The God of the Bible, and the Inerrant Bible itself, because they support one another in a circular way. Any attempt to separate them, like stratnerd has done, will be met with a lot of resistance.
4.
I don't quite agree with this assertion, and Jim will shred it to bits.
The point that should have been made is that these tools and methods ARE science. Even if science is irrational under an atheist worldview like Jim claims, this is what science IS.
From there it is a hop a skip and a jump from unerstanding that evolution is science.
Overall ,a great post, if a bit unfocused.
stratnerd's 4th post
While Stratnerd's 4th post lacked the punch of his previous one, it began cutting in to Jim's core argument (which is really irrelevant to this debate). Stratnerd asked a lot of the questions that have been popping up in this thread, which should help make Jim's case clearer, and focus back on the topic at hand.
1. I would like to see the debaters agree on what science is. Stratnerd has made this point in the last two posts, that science without the assumption of MN is worthless. But he has not put Jim in the corner of accepting this argument. Jim is trying to dance around the issue because it would kill his whole argument.
2. Makes a great point about how under Jim's definiton of science, almost anything can be considered science. Strangely, a broad definition actually hurts Jim's case, so it is in his best interests to narrow it down.
3. Jim never seperates his two presuppositions - The God of the Bible, and the Inerrant Bible itself, because they support one another in a circular way. Any attempt to separate them, like stratnerd has done, will be met with a lot of resistance.
4.
stratnerd said:
I don't quite agree with this assertion, and Jim will shred it to bits.
The point that should have been made is that these tools and methods ARE science. Even if science is irrational under an atheist worldview like Jim claims, this is what science IS.
From there it is a hop a skip and a jump from unerstanding that evolution is science.
Overall ,a great post, if a bit unfocused.
Balder
New member
Just as an example, mixing Hindu, Buddhist, and Christian paradigms, you could have a loving creator God who creates a profoundly interrelated cosmos and sets up the "law" of karma, in which one's actions have repurcussions. In this universe, the loving creator God could manifest avatars who, like Buddhist bodhisattvas, vow to enter into any "world" that sentient beings generate through their karma and to work there tirelessly for their liberation. Here, karma would have a comparable corrective function to Christian "justice," but would not entail punishment for the sake of punishment as a means of obtaining "balance" in the universe. The bodhisattva avatars, by electing to incarnate among suffering beings everywhere (no matter how difficult) in order to teach and uplift, would lead self-emptying lives of love as ultimate transformative "gestures" of the divine.sentientsynth said:
mighty_duck
New member
GuySmiley said:
RNA molecule from primordial soup is quite different from a fully formed man from dust. Just like Anothony Flew concluded, if you wish to hang on to this God of the Gaps, its pointless to argue with you. He will continue to shrink as the gaps get smaller. Easier to concede this point, and get on to more interesting topics.
Like Evolution, which happens to be the topic of debate...
mighty_duck
New member
GuySmiley said:
Under most definitions, the answer is "no". But at some point there must have been a case of life from "non life", no matter how we play with definitions. This is called abiogenesis, and is a different field of research than Evolution.
If you want to call this an act of God, so be it. Science has not solved this mystery yet, and considering it happened 3 or 4 billion years ago, there are chances it never will.
If your next question is "so you have nothing but faith that it happened naturally? how is that different from faith in God?", then the answer is simple.
We have seen things happen naturally. We have seen science solve many mysteries. We have seen these mysteries previously claimed as an act of God, only to have God shrink away after they are discovered. We have also never seen any positive scientific proof of God, or anything supernatural. It is therefore a reasonable conlcusion that abiogenensis was also a natural event.
Either way, this has little to do with Evolution, which explains processes in populations of critters that are already alive.
sentientsynth
New member
Some dissection will be necessary, of course. In what ways you "mix" these three very different worldviews is of primary importance in order to maintain internal consistency within the hybrid.Balder said:
Do you mean in the sense that all causes have effects per se, or that if you are evil you will reap suffering? Would you see these two as one in the same? On what basis is one action deemed "evil" and another "good"?
I'd like you to pay particular attention to this question:
Is suffering necessarily an undesirable state? Why or why not?
How does your world-view explain man's propensity to do what he ought not?
SS
sentientsynth
New member
Why is nature uniform?mighty_duck said:
mighty_duck
New member
sentientsynth said:
That's a philosophical question, when we are dealing with a scientific issue.
Why? That is the nature of the universe. Is anyone denying it is so?
- Status