(June 29, 2018 at 7:55 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote:

(June 29, 2018 at 7:51 pm)Jehanne Wrote: If God said that 2 + 2 = 5, you would believe him?  I would say, "Surely, God, you must be joking!"

If your premise established that god was the source of math and his answers must be right, how would I know the difference?

I would say that such a "god" was an evil God:

Evil God Challenge

---

(June 29, 2018 at 7:56 pm)Kit Wrote: You keep digging that hole, Jehanne.  I can't keep bailing you out.

If you are stating my argument better than I am, I am perfectly okay with that!

(June 29, 2018 at 8:03 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(June 29, 2018 at 7:33 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: I don't see how a God can be set up as the source of morality that must be good and then have moral obligations. If god was the source of morality and god said that not revealing objective morals is in fact moral, how could you argue with that? Not only have you already established that the god must be morally good but you wouldn't have your own morality to judge that god because it is already established that the god himself is the source of morality.

I believe her point was that the assumption that God is all good and the author of morals was at odds with the observation that he doesn't inform us unambiguously of the content of those morals.  That's a standard reductio ad absurdum argument, which, if sound, provides reasonable grounds for rejecting the initial assumption.  You seem to not understand how arguments work.

I do understand reductio absurdum but my point is that if god is the author of morals and he must be good then he can not make a moral decision that is bad. Meaning that making the decision to not inform us must be good as we established in premise. Therefore a god who is the source of morality, who is good, and who chooses not to inform us could in fact exist.

(June 29, 2018 at 8:31 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: I do understand reductio absurdum but my point is that if god is the author of morals and he must be good then he can not make a moral decision that is bad. Meaning that making the decision to not inform us must be good as we established in premise. Therefore a god who is the source of morality, who is good, and who chooses not to inform us could in fact exist.

Talk about mental gymnastics.

Authorship does not equate to perfection.

Short and simple is key.

(June 29, 2018 at 8:31 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote:

(June 29, 2018 at 8:03 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: I believe her point was that the assumption that God is all good and the author of morals was at odds with the observation that he doesn't inform us unambiguously of the content of those morals.  That's a standard reductio ad absurdum argument, which, if sound, provides reasonable grounds for rejecting the initial assumption.  You seem to not understand how arguments work.

I do understand reductio absurdum but my point is that if god is the author of morals and he must be good then he can not make a moral decision that is bad. Meaning that making the decision to not inform us must be good as we established in premise. Therefore a god who is the source of morality, who is good, and who chooses not to inform us could in fact exist.

In premise 2 she is asserting that it is a real, moral obligation that would exist. You can deny that premise if you like. But arguing that the premise is contradictory to the supposed nature of an all good God is simply asserting the possibility of it being otherwise, not pointing out an actual inconsistency in her argument.

(June 29, 2018 at 8:56 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(June 29, 2018 at 8:31 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: I do understand reductio absurdum but my point is that if god is the author of morals and he must be good then he can not make a moral decision that is bad. Meaning that making the decision to not inform us must be good as we established in premise. Therefore a god who is the source of morality, who is good, and who chooses not to inform us could in fact exist.

In premise 2 she is asserting that it is a real, moral obligation that would exist.  You can deny that premise if you like.  But arguing that the premise is contradictory to the supposed nature of an all good God is simply asserting the possibility of it being otherwise, not pointing out an actual inconsistency in her argument.

Why would the obligation exist? God is the author of morality!

The argument is stating that god makes the rules and he must be right.
Then you are saying well he must make this rule or he is wrong.

He cannot always be right and be wrong, especially if he is the one determining what is moral.

(June 29, 2018 at 8:08 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(June 29, 2018 at 7:55 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: If your premise established that god was the source of math and his answers must be right, how would I know the difference?

I would say that such a "god" was an evil God:

Based on what?

(June 29, 2018 at 9:30 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(June 29, 2018 at 8:08 pm)Jehanne Wrote: I would say that such a "god" was an evil God:

Based on what?

Because I am absolutely convinced that 2 + 2 does, in fact, equal 4.

(June 29, 2018 at 5:45 pm)MysticKnight Wrote:

(June 29, 2018 at 5:13 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Hey, remember that time I asked you for external evidence for your god, and you couldn’t present any? And, then I explained to you how using the Quran to prove the claims of the Quran is begging the question, and instead of addressing the fallacy in your argument, you got pissed off and insulted me?  You wanna try again?  Where’s your external corroborating evidence? Or put another way, why should I believe this crap is true?

---

God created us, and given us eyes to perceive this world and the next.

You haven’t demonstrated god exists.

Quote:The Quran is just at the end words. Words point to concepts, concepts can lead to truth.  God designed the book so that it facilitates and nourishes those who reflect and sincerely search the truth, he facilitates guidance for them at all levels. Now this would mean at all levels, there is more knowledge to be had of the Quran. The Quran then never ceases to guide and increase in knowledge.

You cannot cite the Quran as evidence of, or knowledge of the claims in the Quran.  You are begging the question.  

Quote:It happens to be that the knowledge from the book being mixed with no falsehood can lead to visions of certainty of a higher kind.

In order to demonstrate the truth of the Quran’s claims, you need external corroborating evidence.  You are still begging the question.

Quote:Now if I said this is true because Quran said so it would be circular.

 
That’s all you’ve been saying, and I fear it’s all you’re ever going to say.

Quote:However, if I can show Quran indeed iterates knowledge and guidance and proofs at all levels of intellects, and guides endlessly, I would say, a book that guides humans with regards to all guidance needed by them, is no small thing.

I agree.  But in order to do that you will need some external, corroborating evidence.  Got any?

Quote:In fact, humans, they write things, at it ends at a certain point. That is it's amazements come to an end.  Quran on the other hand if you experience it, it's amazements and wonders increase the more you recite it, it opens doors to itself otherwise locked.

Maybe in your own mind, MK.  But you still haven’t provided a shred of evidence that anything written in that book is true.  “It feels really awesome and true when I read it”, is not evidence.

Quote:It also dispels the sorcery cast upon it and proves the existence of sorcery that is an enemy of Mohammad and his family.

No, it doesn’t prove that.

Quote:All I can do in this regard is iterate some reflections over Quran to prove it is a guidance at a very high level.

Then you will be engaging in a question begging fallacy, because reflecting on the Quran does not prove anything in the Quran is true.  You are literally giving me the heads up that you’re going to argue in a circle.

Quote:And then over time iterate again, a higher level of it. And then again, a much higher level of insights to it, building upon the former.

Round and round he goes, folks...

Quote:Maybe give me time and you will see what I'm talking about. He made the Quran superior in knowledge and guidance, the knowledge and guidance can be experienced as a human.

Where did you get that idea?  The Quran?  Are you seeing the pattern yet, MK?

Quote:There is other arguments in the form:

God is capable of revealing a proof for guidance.

You haven’t demonstrated a god exists.

Quote:God would reveal a proof for guidance.

You haven’t demonstrated a god exists, but sure.  I would certainly think any god would make his existence known to his creation.

Quote:There is no physical miracle today as proof of guidance.
Therefore the miracle and proof of guidance must be the reasoning and guidance in a recitation from God.
There is only one book that heavily emphasizes on this argument.
Therefore the book is true

Have you ever asked yourself why god couldn’t have done better than a dusty old book?  Have you ever asked yourself why it is that there’s no physical proof of your god?  Did you ever consider that an alternative conclusion; a better one; given that there is no physical proof of your god, is: “therefore he doesn’t exist”?

Quote:But you don't accept God to begin with. So you don't understand it's paradigm the Quran works with.

No one has presented any evidence.  Your book of thousand-year-old claims and proselytizing is not evidence.

Quote:You don't think words can have wonders and make you experience wonders.

All I’m asking for is some external, corroborating evidence.  It shouldn’t be this hard.

Quote:But literature is powerful.  And God being the Creator, knows how to amaze us and make us realize a book is from him.

 
*sigh*  You haven’t demonstrated god exists...

Quote:Of course, as it is a guidance, it must ultimately robustly be guiding and thorough in guidance, but to unlocks it's hidden treasures, you have to approach the family of the reminder.

Maybe this makes sense in your head, but it’s nonsense to me.

Quote:I will try to show that coupled with their words, and coupled with reflection, Quran is a much higher book then people estimate it to be. I can't show it's full degree, all I can do is show ways of reflection that will perhaps inspire you to recite the book with a higher level of reverence and reflection that might manifest the wonders to you through the guide of our time.

Then you are continuing to engage in the question begging fallacy your entire argument rests upon, and you have learned nothing from the feedback of your interlocutors.

(June 29, 2018 at 9:41 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(June 29, 2018 at 9:30 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Based on what?

Because I am absolutely convinced that 2 + 2 does, in fact, equal 4.

So, I take it that you have completely abandoned the OP then.
And the question seems to still remain...based on what?

(June 29, 2018 at 10:06 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(June 29, 2018 at 9:41 pm)Jehanne Wrote: Because I am absolutely convinced that 2 + 2 does, in fact, equal 4.

So, I take it that you have completely abandoned the OP then.
And the question seems to still remain...based on what?

No, not at all.

If there is truly an omnipotent, eternal God who is the source and grounding of all moral truths, then it is reasonable to expect that such a God would reveal such truths to Us, His Creation, and indeed, such a Being would be morally obligated to do so.