The joy of religion - part xxxxxxxxx

[buckshot24]

Is it appropriate to apply human concepts such as consent and issues of self awareness and degrees of sentience to animals other than humans?

You don't think chimps are self aware and can give consent?

 

[Victorian Gray]

You don't think chimps are self aware and can give consent?

Are they? Can they?

 

[bshole]

Allowing something to happen is not the same thing as choosing it to happen.

Your 5 year old son is drowning in the pool in front of you; is "allowing" him to drown morally superior to pushing his head under water and "choosing" him to drown? Perhaps, but only by a hair. Clearly the morally superior action to either of the above actions would be to save him from drowning. Of course that would be my "subjectively" moral position. Your "objective" moral position is obviously different.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Allowing something to happen is not the same thing as choosing it to happen.

Creating a universe with full and inerrant foreknowledge of the totality of events that will necessarily transpire within it is not "allowing" those things to happen. It is forcing those things to happen.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

God: Hmmm... I guess I could create a universe where nobody was ever raped and murdered, or I could create a universe where rape and murder will necessarily happen... :hmm:

God: ... :hmm:

God: Rape and murder it shall be! :awe:

 

[shira]

HAHA, explain it then.

Thanks for not answering the question.

 

[buckshot24]

Thanks for not answering the question.

I thought your statement was SO absurd that I couldn't continue.

 

[buckshot24]

Your 5 year old son is drowning in the pool in front of you; is "allowing" him to drown morally superior to pushing his head under water and "choosing" him to drown? Perhaps, but only by a hair. Clearly the morally superior action to either of the above actions would be to save him from drowning. Of course that would be my "subjectively" moral position. Your "objective" moral position is obviously different.

So you admit allowing is not the same thing as making it happen. Thanks.

 

[shira]

I thought your statement was SO absurd that I couldn't continue.

The only thing absurd was your response. You hang your hat on head of the God of the Gaps. But what will you do when those gaps disappear? I know, you'll just refuse to answer the question.

 

[MajinCry]

So you admit allowing is not the same thing as making it happen. Thanks.

Did you just ignore the context of this discussion?

I think you just ignored the context of this discussion.

Yeah, you just ignored the context of this discussion.

 

[sandorski]

Did you just ignore the context of this discussion?

I think you just ignored the context of this discussion.

Yeah, you just ignored the context of this discussion.

He(?) seems to be a Matt Slick wannabe. I don't expect any Intellectual Honesty is forthcoming or even possible.

 

[shira]

So you admit allowing is not the same thing as making it happen. Thanks.

But you believe that at the moment God considered creating your father's, father's, father's, father's, father's, father's . . . . . father, God knew exactly that if He did so, your 5-year-old son would drown in the pool in front of you. So God had a choice of creating your ancestor in exactly the way he did, leading to you child's drowning, OR of creating your ancestor in a slightly different way or at a slightly different time, where your son would never be in danger.

So, yes, under YOUR conception of God, He DID make the drowning of your son happen.

 

[buckshot24]

The only thing absurd was your response. You hang your hat on head of the God of the Gaps. But what will you do when those gaps disappear? I know, you'll just refuse to answer the question.

Wrong. I don't believe in God because of the origin of life.

So, please explain how the origin of life is "pretty well understood".

 

[buckshot24]

Did you just ignore the context of this discussion?

I think you just ignored the context of this discussion.

Yeah, you just ignored the context of this discussion.

The context of my conversation had nothing to do with you.

 

[buckshot24]

But you believe that at the moment God considered creating your father's, father's, father's, father's, father's, father's . . . . . father, God knew exactly that if He did so, your 5-year-old son would drown in the pool in front of you.

Repeat after me, knowing and causing are not the same thing so no.

So God had a choice of creating your ancestor in exactly the way he did, leading to you child's drowning, OR of creating your ancestor in a slightly different way or at a slightly different time, where your son would never be in danger.

Again, repeat after me. Knowing and causing are not the same thing.

So, yes, under YOUR conception of God, He DID make the drowning of your son happen.

Except you're completely wrong since knowing and causing are completely different.

 

[bshole]

Repeat after me, knowing and causing are not the same thing so no.

Soo.... denying God's omnipotence are we? Wouldn't that heretical blasphemy condemn you to hell?

 

[MajinCry]

The context of my conversation had nothing to do with you.

forum
ˈfɔːrəm/
noun
noun: forum; plural noun: forums; plural noun: fora
1.
a meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged.


Ya resorted to trolling, huh? Go figure.

 

[buckshot24]

Soo.... denying God's omnipotence are we? Wouldn't that heretical blasphemy condemn you to hell?

No I'm not. If you want to argue against a strawman version of God you go right ahead.

 

[buckshot24]

forum
ˈfɔːrəm/
noun
noun: forum; plural noun: forums; plural noun: fora
1.
a meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged.


Ya resorted to trolling, huh? Go figure.

Yes and I was exchanging ideas with SOMEBODY else. Nothing to do with you.

 

[MajinCry]

Yes and I was exchanging ideas with SOMEBODY else. Nothing to do with you.

How old are you? Five? You should have a better rebuttal than "I WASN'T TALKING TO YOU!".

 

[buckshot24]

How old are you? Five? You should have a better rebuttal than "I WASN'T TALKING TO YOU!".

When the charge was I ignored context, it seems perfectly legitimate. Can we end this irrelevancy now?

 

[bshole]

No I'm not. If you want to argue against a strawman version of God you go right ahead.

Because you and you alone know the real character of God? And you got this knowledge how? I am not in your mind so I have no idea of your God's characteristics, you really never elucidated them in detail. I am therefor reduced to arguing against the God described in the Bible whom apparently differs greatly from your God. Or perhaps my interpretation of scripture is just different from yours. Dunno.

Give me your God's characteristics and I will take a whack at them.

I will say that an omnipotent God must be evil by definition. Life on earth provides ample evidence of that. The horrendous amount of suffering and fear prohibits the notion of an omnipotent loving God. Really, how difficult would it be to create a universe without suffering for an omnipotent being?

 

[buckshot24]

Because you and you alone know the real character of God?

No, but when you assume knowledge of is the same thing as causing events you can't come to a good conclusion.

I will say that an omnipotent God must be evil by definition. Life on earth provides ample evidence of that. The horrendous amount of suffering and fear prohibits the notion of an omnipotent loving God. Really, how difficult would it be to create a universe without suffering for an omnipotent being?

Saying it doesn't make it so especially given the complete lack of information that you have. I don't ask 2 year olds if mommy is mean because she put them to bed. Except in this case you're infinitely less able to make a valid conclusion than the 2 year old.

 

[WelshBloke]

No I'm not. If you want to argue against a strawman version of God you go right ahead.

I'm hesitant at getting involved as this thread seems to be spiraling down now but...

Isn't every version of god essentially a straw man? Everyone constructs it differently.

 

[MongGrel]

forum
ˈfɔːrəm/
noun
noun: forum; plural noun: forums; plural noun: fora
1.
a meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged.


Ya resorted to trolling, huh? Go figure.

You're pretty much on page 43 of what has kind of developed into a bit of a train wreck thread by now.

Situational awareness is a good thing to learn also.