(March 28, 2016 at 1:59 pm)JuliaL Wrote:

(March 28, 2016 at 1:33 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Not at all. You ignored the part about "as demonstrated by..." You'll need to work a little harder than your unsupported assertions and deal with the demonstration provided by Aquinas without resorting to the typical straw men presented by every single atheist on AF who has attempted to refute it.

My point is that Larry, as you claim without evidence is the straw man, has every bit as much basis as the first mover argument.
He is just the first mover for GCM.
Please show otherwise.

I already did. The idea of a pre-first mover is logically impossible. All you have done is show that you do not understand the concept.

(March 28, 2016 at 2:08 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(March 28, 2016 at 1:59 pm)JuliaL Wrote: My point is that Larry, as you claim without evidence is the straw man, has every bit as much basis as the first mover argument.
He is just the first mover for GCM.
Please show otherwise.

I already did. The idea of a pre-first mover is logically impossible. All you have done is show that you do not understand the concept.

No,
As you have no way to connect GCM to the actual first mover, I can make him the second mover.
So said Larry.... All hail Larry.

Gots to go now. Sorry.

(March 28, 2016 at 11:50 am)ChadWooters Wrote:

(March 28, 2016 at 11:00 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: ...I came up with that argument on my own. I didn't know Euthypro's Dilemma existed as such until reading this thread.

If you say so.

(March 28, 2016 at 11:00 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: Your rejection...is that God uses himself as the standard for goodness because he is the very essence of goodness (or something like that).

Something like that.

(March 28, 2016 at 11:00 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: Aside from being completely circular...

Only if you ignore the context and history.

(March 28, 2016 at 11:00 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: If God decided to use his own qualities as the standard for good, then it's still arbitrary and based on nothing more than divine command.

Your objection is based on the irrational idea that God could act contrary to His nature. The only thing arbitrary is the personal choice of whether or not to accept God's Nature as the object of moral reasoning. Virtue ethics argues that it is both wise and praiseworthy to do so.

I don't actually believe that God can act at all, since to act one must first exist, but even if he could, why is it irrational to expect that an omnipotent being could act contrary to its nature? If he can't act against his nature, what stops him? If it's a set of rules, then he's not the highest moral authority, and if it's his own limitations, then he's not all-powerful, which is a whole other problem to itself.

Here's my bottom-line problem with what you're proposing here, Chad.


What you're essentially saying is that Gaud's very nature is good, and therefore all his words, actions, and rules must also be good. Right?


If you believed in a Unicorn god made of sunshine and wishes that wanted everyone to love everyone and be nice all the time and stop doing things like war and murder and being mean to brown people and gay people and women and whoever, I wouldn't really have a problem with that. Whatever keeps you from killing everyone around you works for me, buddy.


But that's not your god. Your god is the Gaud of the Bible.


So when Gaud commands the Israelites to wipe out other nations and keep the virgin girls for themselves, that is good because Gaud commanded it, and Gaud is good.


When in both the Old and New Testament Gaud condones and endorses slavery, that is good because Gaud is good.


When Gaud allegedly wipes out virtually all of man and animal kind save for one alcoholic and his pervert kids (Oh, and two of every animal ever), that is good because Gaud is good.


When Kim Davis cites Gaud's law as she denies marriage rights to gay couples in a secular government building, that is good because Gaud is good.


ANY atrocity is justifiable using the Bible/God's command as the definition of one's moral code, and on a practical level that is indistinguishable from divine command  (which isn't morality). Regardless of your justification for why your Gaud gets to tell us what to do, the bottom line is that you think any action is permissible so long as you think Gaud wills it, and that kind of thinking is dangerous. Maybe you're not dangerous, but someone else just like you is. If you can convince yourself that your idealized self-projection/imaginary friend is right every time he tells you to do something, that is a HUGE problem unless the god in your head a is a really nice guy.


3 religion-fueled terrorist attacks in the last week more or less prove my point. I hate to seem like I'm using a tragic event to my advantage, but seriously, wake up. Those people believe their god tells them what to do every bit as much as you do. Sure, you're not out killing people, but rewind the clock to crusade times and you might have been (if you were lucky enough to be born into in the warrior class). Historically speaking, your religion isn't particularly more peaceful than theirs (perhaps even less, since you've been around longer).

(March 28, 2016 at 3:44 pm)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: Here's my bottom-line problem with what you're proposing here, Chad.


What you're essentially saying is that Gaud's very nature is good, and therefore all his words, actions, and rules must also be good. Right?


If you believed in a Unicorn god made of sunshine and wishes that wanted everyone to love everyone and be nice all the time and stop doing things like war and murder and being mean to brown people and gay people and women and whoever, I wouldn't really have a problem with that. Whatever keeps you from killing everyone around you works for me, buddy.


But that's not your god. Your god is the Gaud of the Bible.


So when Gaud commands the Israelites to wipe out other nations and keep the virgin girls for themselves, that is good because Gaud commanded it, and Gaud is good.


When in both the Old and New Testament Gaud condones and endorses slavery, that is good because Gaud is good.


When Gaud allegedly wipes out virtually all of man and animal kind save for one alcoholic and his pervert kids (Oh, and two of every animal ever), that is good because Gaud is good.


When Kim Davis cites Gaud's law as she denies marriage rights to gay couples in a secular government building, that is good because Gaud is good.


ANY atrocity is justifiable using the Bible/God's command as the definition of one's moral code, and on a practical level that is indistinguishable from divine command  (which isn't morality). Regardless of your justification for why your Gaud gets to tell us what to do, the bottom line is that you think any action is permissible so long as you think Gaud wills it, and that kind of thinking is dangerous. Maybe you're not dangerous, but someone else just like you is. If you can convince yourself that your idealized self-projection/imaginary friend is right every time he tells you to do something, that is a HUGE problem unless the god in your head a is a really nice guy.


3 religion-fueled terrorist attacks in the last week more or less prove my point. I hate to seem like I'm using a tragic event to my advantage, but seriously, wake up. Those people believe their god tells them what to do every bit as much as you do. Sure, you're not out killing people, but rewind the clock to crusade times and you might have been (if you were lucky enough to be born into in the warrior class). Historically speaking, your religion isn't particularly more peaceful than theirs (perhaps even less, since you've been around longer).

Very nicely put, RedBeard. Yes, we can say 'God is good by nature' all we want; unfortunately, the responsibility of interpreting god's unwavering good will always lands on the shoulders of people. And people, by their very own nature, tend to disagree with each other. For some weird reason, God never steps in to make clarifications...

I heard a religious apologist once say that the bible teaches us slavery is wrong, and if anyone gleans otherwise from the scripture, then they aren't reading it right. How could this God (supposedly perfect in every way) fail so miserably at passing on his divine moral code, that humans have erroneously interpreted the exact OPPOSITE of what he meant?! It is just...so beyond common sense it hurts.

As a side note, I've never seen Chad even attempt to bridge the gap between his existential ideas, and the Holy Bible. As far as I've seen, he does not engage in discussions concerning scripture. I wonder why that is...*pretends to wonder*

L4C, I just noticed your signature, and I absolutely love it.

What makes god good or bad? If there is just god, how does it determine good and bad? Why could not god just as easily be bad? If god has no greater presence then any definition of good or bad must be arbitrarily assigned by god. Therefore, subjective.

(March 28, 2016 at 4:19 pm)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: L4C, I just noticed your signature, and I absolutely love it.

Oh, thank you! [emoji1]. I love me some Tom Waits, AND some chocolate Jesus! [emoji41]

I dunno.  If it;s anything like a chocolate rabbit ... 

(March 28, 2016 at 7:41 pm)IATIA Wrote: I dunno.  If it;s anything like a chocolate rabbit ... 

LOL, what? But...WHY?! Poor little fella.