Is there a God?

[Tarsonis]

If there is a God, God is not the one described in the Bible or Quran.

In addition, a god can be omnipotent or omnibenevolent, but not both.

It's not any more correct now than it was when you asserted it 10 pages ago.

[Neanderthaland]

We could answer this with everything from consequentialism to deontology, and still have some reasons left over. But it's largely a moot point. We do agree that sadism is a wicked impulse. And as we agree, we can set that as a moral axiom and elaborate from there.

But even we agreeing on it, doesn't make that mandative, or even correct. And even with all those arguments, doesn't make them true, just makes them convincing and agreed upon. What really is "true morality?"

Something that humanity must decide.

Referring the question upwards, doesn't make the answers better, it just makes them harder to argue with when the consequences of those beliefs start having deleterious effects on society.

[Tarsonis]

I'm not, I'm saying that because we don't know, does not mean there isn't one. I have faith that there is, but i can't claim to know that there is, or what it is. I can speculate, but that's just an educated guess.




Because your reasoning doesn't support your position nor does it invalidate mine.

I point out that there is suffering in nature that is unrelated to human free will, and that does not appear to serve any constructive purpose.

Your argument is self defeating, as you wrote "does not appear to serve..." Which begs the question, does this lack of appearance mean that it doesn't serve a purpose or is it that you lack the ability to discern the purpose. There are many things that we aren't able to discern in the moment, but later on with a better perspective we can . (as they say hindsight is 2020.) Your argument that there doesn't appear to be one, is thus not a convincing argument that there isn't one.

Your argument is that it might serve a constructive purpose, because you believe that it does.

These are not equal opposites. Your argument is not a good-faith response to mine.

It's an argument that is taken in the broader context of adherence to a religious tradition.

[Kiu Ghesik]

ITT: People who disagree on the definitions of basic axioms required for debate yell at each other about how they're right from their point of view.

And I'm guilty of that, as I agree with a certain poster's argument over others.

[Necroghastia]

In addition, a god can be omnipotent or omnibenevolent, but not both.

It's not any more correct now than it was when you asserted it 10 pages ago.

I didn't assert anything 10 pages ago.
But please, feel free to actually make a refutation that isn't flimsy.

[Tarsonis]

But even we agreeing on it, doesn't make that mandative, or even correct. And even with all those arguments, doesn't make them true, just makes them convincing and agreed upon. What really is "true morality?"

Something that humanity must decide.

But that wouldn't be true morality, that would just be what humanity has decided is useful at the time. And thus there is no reason for anyone to beholden to it, beyond it being useful for their survival.

Referring the question upwards, doesn't make the answers better, it just makes them harder to argue with when the consequences of those beliefs start having deleterious effects on society.

Without a higher authority, morality is meaningless. There in lies your problem.

[Sicilian Imperial-Capitalist Empire]

I'd like to ask those believing in moral absolutism: Why is god the arbitrator of morality? What gives him that "right" to do so?

What specifically makes him unable to be evil?

[Tarsonis]

It's not any more correct now than it was when you asserted it 10 pages ago.

I didn't assert anything 10 pages ago.
But please, feel free to actually make a refutation that isn't flimsy.

I've already pointed out its failings multiple times.

[Necroghastia]

Something that humanity must decide.

But that wouldn't be true morality, that would just be what humanity has decided is useful at the time. And thus there is no reason for anyone to beholden to it, beyond it being useful for their survival.

Referring the question upwards, doesn't make the answers better, it just makes them harder to argue with when the consequences of those beliefs start having deleterious effects on society.

Without a higher authority, morality is meaningless. There in lies your problem.

lmao no it isn't

[Neanderthaland]

I point out that there is suffering in nature that is unrelated to human free will, and that does not appear to serve any constructive purpose.

Your argument is self defeating, as you wrote "does not appear to serve..." Which begs the question, does this lack of appearance mean that it doesn't serve a purpose or is it that you lack the ability to discern the purpose. There are many things that we aren't able to discern in the moment, but later on with a better perspective we can . (as they say hindsight is 2020.) Your argument that there doesn't appear to be one, is thus not a convincing argument that there isn't one.

It's an argument that is taken in the broader context of adherence to a religious tradition.

This was the perfect opportunity to answer my Hogfather video with a Fiddler on the Roof number. Sadly wasted.

But, tradition or no, it's playing tennis without a net.

A cancer patient goes into remission, and we're told that God is good. A packed schoolbus is crushed in a landslide, and we're told that God is mysterious. Now you are obligated to believe these things because of your faith. But that doesn't make the move itself a reasonable one.

[Tarsonis]

I'd like to ask those believing in moral absolutism: Why is god the arbitrator of morality? What gives him that "right" to do so?

Ultimately? His sandbox his rules.

What specifically makes him unable to be evil?

Same reason that Hot, can't be cold.

[Necroghastia]

I didn't assert anything 10 pages ago.
But please, feel free to actually make a refutation that isn't flimsy.

I've already pointed out its failings multiple times.

You really haven't.

[Tarsonis]

Your argument is self defeating, as you wrote "does not appear to serve..." Which begs the question, does this lack of appearance mean that it doesn't serve a purpose or is it that you lack the ability to discern the purpose. There are many things that we aren't able to discern in the moment, but later on with a better perspective we can . (as they say hindsight is 2020.) Your argument that there doesn't appear to be one, is thus not a convincing argument that there isn't one.




It's an argument that is taken in the broader context of adherence to a religious tradition.

This was the perfect opportunity to answer my Hogfather video with a Fiddler on the Roof number. Sadly wasted.

But, tradition or no, it's playing tennis without a net.

A cancer patient goes into remission, and we're told that God is good. A packed schoolbus is crushed in a landslide, and we're told that God is mysterious. Now you are obligated to believe these things because of your faith. But that doesn't make the move itself a reasonable one.

The mistake here is assuming that those things are opposed, and not simultaneously true.

[Neanderthaland]

Something that humanity must decide.

But that wouldn't be true morality, that would just be what humanity has decided is useful at the time. And thus there is no reason for anyone to beholden to it, beyond it being useful for their survival.

Referring the question upwards, doesn't make the answers better, it just makes them harder to argue with when the consequences of those beliefs start having deleterious effects on society.

Without a higher authority, morality is meaningless. There in lies your problem.

Try telling a cop that the speed limit is meaningless if they don't believe in God. Tell me how it works out.

[Kiu Ghesik]

But that wouldn't be true morality, that would just be what humanity has decided is useful at the time. And thus there is no reason for anyone to beholden to it, beyond it being useful for their survival.




Without a higher authority, morality is meaningless. There in lies your problem.

lmao no it isn't

It doesn't have an objective basis, without a higher power, is what he's getting at. It then becomes a way of codifying actions that benefit and harm the society defining it as being "good" and "evil", respectively.

[Tarsonis]

I've already pointed out its failings multiple times.

You really haven't.

I have. Your refusal to accept it, well that's a you problem.

[Sicilian Imperial-Capitalist Empire]

I'd like to ask those believing in moral absolutism: Why is god the arbitrator of morality? What gives him that "right" to do so?

Ultimately? His sandbox his rules.

What specifically makes him unable to be evil?

Same reason that Hot, can't be cold.

...aannndddd now we've gone full circle back to the original argument in this thread.

Tell me, is there any scientific evidence of the existence of god that is falsifiable and testable?

[Necroghastia]

lmao no it isn't

It doesn't have an objective basis, without a higher power, is what he's getting at. It then becomes a way of codifying actions that benefit and harm the society defining it as being "good" and "evil", respectively.

And I fail to see how that means it is "meaningless."

[Neanderthaland]

This was the perfect opportunity to answer my Hogfather video with a Fiddler on the Roof number. Sadly wasted.

But, tradition or no, it's playing tennis without a net.

A cancer patient goes into remission, and we're told that God is good. A packed schoolbus is crushed in a landslide, and we're told that God is mysterious. Now you are obligated to believe these things because of your faith. But that doesn't make the move itself a reasonable one.

The mistake here is assuming that those things are opposed, and not simultaneously true.

Uh, no. That wasn't done or assumed. I was pointing out your mistake of assuming these things ARE simultaneously true, and ignoring all other possibilities.

[Necroghastia]

You really haven't.

I have. Your refusal to accept it, well that's a you problem.

Where? Where have you refuted the statement that something can be omnipotent or omnibenevolent, but not both? Because I'm pretty sure that was he first time I actually said that flat out in this thread.

[Tarsonis]

But that wouldn't be true morality, that would just be what humanity has decided is useful at the time. And thus there is no reason for anyone to beholden to it, beyond it being useful for their survival.




Without a higher authority, morality is meaningless. There in lies your problem.

Try telling a cop that the speed limit is meaningless if they don't believe in God. Tell me how it works out.

Do you not see how that actually supports my point, not refutes it?

[Tarsonis]

I have. Your refusal to accept it, well that's a you problem.

Where? Where have you refuted the statement that something can be omnipotent or omnibenevolent, but not both? Because I'm pretty sure that was he first time I actually said that flat out in this thread.

It's been argued a couple times in this thread already. Not my job to get you up to speed.

[Tarsonis]

The mistake here is assuming that those things are opposed, and not simultaneously true.

Uh, no. That wasn't done or assumed. I was pointing out your mistake of assuming these things ARE simultaneously true, and ignoring all other possibilities.

I'm not ignoring other possibilities, I just don't consider them relevant.

[Neanderthaland]

Try telling a cop that the speed limit is meaningless if they don't believe in God. Tell me how it works out.

Do you not see how that actually supports my point, not refutes it?

Why shouldn't morality be useful to humanity?

[Kiu Ghesik]

It doesn't have an objective basis, without a higher power, is what he's getting at. It then becomes a way of codifying actions that benefit and harm the society defining it as being "good" and "evil", respectively.

And I fail to see how that means it is "meaningless."

It lacks a fixed meaning, I guess you could say. Anyone can twist it around to make morality whatever they want it to be.

though it's not like organized religions haven't done that, either