So let's modify the argument so it's more clear.

Assume where it the case an eternal creator was possible (metaphysically possible).

If that assumed eternal creator can create goodness out of nothing, it can decide it's good to torture a being for ever with intense torture for no crime on it's own in some possible world.
It's impossible that assumed eternal creator can make goodness such that it's good to torture a being forever with intense torture for no crime on it's own in any possible world.
Therefore it's necessarily the case that goodness cannot be created out nothing by any assumed creator in any possible world.
Goodness exists and it's part of our reality/selves.
If assumed creator cannot create goodness out of nothing, then neither can evolution, as it can create evolution.
Goodness therefore is eternal (not created)
Goodness only is possible if perceived.
Therefore an eternal perception of goodness existed.

Science always wins what has spiritual knowledge benefited anyone in history.
Observation we know germs exist, were as back then spiritual knowledge germs were thought of as
demons. Science knowledge we revolve around the sun, spiritual knowledge the sun revolves around us.
I could keep going but i am tired and exhausted.

MK use your head how could something we have no knowledge about be eternal. How could god of the bible
who has emotions and is very complex of a character be eternal. The idea of a eternal creator doesn't make any
sense try wrapping your head around a tea cup and it always existed out of space and time. You have faith
that the tea cup exists outside of space time and believe it to exist. What knowledge do you have outside of faith
to prove that the tea cup exists the simple answer would be none. You only have faith to prove the tea cup to exist
with science we know that nothing can exist outside of space and time it's not possible. And you couldn't possibly
imagine the tea cup existing outside of space time. The fact being is intelligent life I.E. your god cannot exist outside
of space and time.

(January 7, 2016 at 6:19 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: So let's modify the argument so it's more clear.

Assume where it the case an eternal creator was possible (metaphysically possible).

Clarity, awesome.  Go!

Quote:If that assumed eternal creator can create goodness out of nothing, it can decide it's good to torture a being for ever with intense torture for no crime on it's own in some possible world.

Okay.

Quote:It's impossible that assumed eternal creator can make goodness such that it's good to torture a being forever with intense torture for no crime on it's own in any possible world.

Isn't this statement directly contradictory to the statement above?

Quote:Therefore it's necessarily the case that goodness cannot be created out nothing by any assumed creator in any possible world.

Therefore from what..what rule of inference have you used,  and what have you inferred this from?  

Quote:Goodness exists and it's part of our reality/selves.

Thanks for the testimonial, many would agree...but I fail to see the relevance.

Quote:If assumed creator cannot create goodness out of nothing, then neither can evolution, as it can create evolution.

Sort of like...if I can't paint...then neither can Picasso?  IDK buddy.....

Quote:Goodness therefore is eternal (not created)

Therefore from what, what rule of inference have you used, and what have you inferred this from?

Quote:Goodness only is possible if perceived.

Sort of like it's impossible for a light to be on in a room I can't see into?  IDK buddy....

Quote:Therefore an eternal perception of goodness existed.

.......Therefore from what.............


What argument Mystic......honestly?  Are you sure you understand what needs to happen for you to be able to claim that you are presenting an argument?

Rhythm, I've discussed a lot with you over the years. This argument we've discussed in the past.  I'm not interested in debating this with you. Sorry.

Let her have a go at it. At least if nothing more, it will increase her philosophical reasoning and abilities to reason.

Arguing with an idiot doesn't make either party smarter.  Perhaps, though, you should present an argument, if it's her intellectual development that interests you?

(January 3, 2016 at 11:39 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: I find it very annoying when theists play fast and loose with the definition of the word "knowledge."

A common claim around AF is that our lack of belief in God is the result of some spiritual knowledge gap; that the information about God is right in front of the atheist's face but he chooses not to see it; that he is missing important information due to a narrow, empiricist world view.

I've seen it posed a couple different ways, such as with flowery language like: "you will know the divine truth only when you open your heart to the light that is all things." crapola, to more formally structured arguments involving philosopher name dropping, and: "that depends on what the meaning of the word "is," is." type of thing.

What is knowledge that is not testable, not measurable against anything, not reproducible, not able to be objectively confirmed, and not demonstratable to others? It is simply NOT knowledge. How can theists justify using that word when speaking of metaphysical or spiritual subject matter?

I might have a bit more respect for theism if theists would just call a spade, a spade. Theist says to me: I have knowledge that God exists. I know he exists because: I have experienced him, personally. He has shown himself to me, personally. His existence is self-evident to ME. How can the theist think he has obtained actual knowledge regarding God's existence if the only way he can pass it on is to just TELL people, "it's true, because I have experienced it, and I have decided that it is true, and I am telling you that it is." How can he regard his believe as anything but individual testimonial?

If a paranoid schizophrenic has delusions and auditory hallucinations of the devil speaking to him, would any reasonable person believe he has knowledge about the nature of Satan? Of course not. The schizophrenic's experience is real, and certainly powerful to him, but it is a subjective experience regardless.

I suspect theists paint god-belief as an intellectual subject rather than an experiential one because they think this will make it an easier pill for non-believers to swallow. It is as if they realize how irrational naked faith actually is, so they try to beef it up with philosophical rhetoric; try to make it appear grounded in reality when it's not. Maybe this makes it an easier pill for THEM to swallow.

Theists: Please remember to use the word "knowledge" only where it reasonably applies.

Here endeth my rant. Thanks for listening, and hopefully I didn't break any forum rules this time, and YES, I read them!

You don't decide to believe experience. If you stump your toe, you can decide that shit didn't happen, but it still did.

Knowledge via personal experience that was/is verifiable through the particulars of said scenario/s is still personal irrefutable knowledge that has been tested and/or verified by the individual.

It is not the same as scientific law, as it cannot be observed by a third party unless by the will of GOD. Apparently, generally speaking, God leaves the acquisition of utter truth to the individual. Otherwise it wouldn't be irrefutable to that individual.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

If you stub your toe, regardless of whether or not you decide to believe that you stubbed your toe.....you could just show us a stubbed toe.  God vanishes the moment someone assesses god claims critically.  No stubbed gods to show for all your trouble, huh? Special exemptions for special gods. Do you understand why this response fails to be rationally tenable? You're asking us to suspend the rules in this case, you're asking us to ignore the dissimilarity in your own chosen analogy.

(January 3, 2016 at 11:52 am)vorlon13 Wrote: In science, if you liken a theory or argument to a chain, to fuck up that theory, you only need to break a single link.

In religion it seems, breaking every link is not convincing to some/most/all believers. 'Predicting' how old the universe is and how it formed would be a make or break thing, all religions get it wrong and yet belief persists. We have Christian scripture promising belief is all it takes to move mountains, heal the sick, and to neutralize serpent venom and poison. So where are all these moved mountains hiding ?

You get religious apologist making all manner of logical fallacies in defending their faiths to the extent it is embarrassing and headache inducing to read their explanations. And belief persists.

6 aeons, give or take for time dilation, and cooling after initial rapid expansion and any variance during said expansion.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

(January 3, 2016 at 12:14 pm)robvalue Wrote: As soon as anyone talks about "spiritual" things, in a non-metaphorical way, I literally have no idea what they are talking about. I've asked many times, but I've never received anything that sounds like a sensible answer to me.

How would you describe something that is without physical bounds or within complete human comprehension, in literal terms?

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

How would you..........this is -precisely- the trouble. If you maintain that these things are difficult or impossible to express properly from the status of a lowly human worm, then how is it you feel so confident in your own worm's knowledge? If an atheist says to you..."you've clearly fucked the god thing up, what you describe is inaccurate/nonsense/incomplete/incomprehensible".......are they wrong? It's hard to see why you would think so...what with thinking god is so damned ineffable......