Login

**Neo-Scholastic** · September 24, 2018 at 4:43 pm

(September 24, 2018 at 12:23 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: A god who kills innocent babies for no reason is greater than one who does not. I defy any Christian to prove me objectively wrong.

Kind of hard to do when you won't even acknowledge that mathematics is objective.

**The Grand Nudger**

Abstraction, like ontological subjectivity before it, does not preclude epistemic objectivity.

We can use math to make objective statements, but it's still an abstraction..just as we can use the subjective contents of our experience to make objective statements. Anyhoo, that's way too softball of a question to justify that particular outburst of misunderstanding.

That a babykilling god is not great is demonstrable in the same way that a given bit of math is demonstrable. You start with your axioms and then show your work. Catch-22, ultimately...since demonstrating that a babykilling god is not, in fact, great..also demonstrates that great fairy is not great.

Angrboda · September 24, 2018 at 6:21 pm

(September 24, 2018 at 4:43 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:
(September 24, 2018 at 12:23 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: A god who kills innocent babies for no reason is greater than one who does not. I defy any Christian to prove me objectively wrong.

Kind of hard to do when you won't even acknowledge that mathematics is objective.

If I grant you that math is objective, does that help any?

Amarok · September 24, 2018 at 6:40 pm

(September 24, 2018 at 6:21 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:
(September 24, 2018 at 4:43 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Kind of hard to do when you won't even acknowledge that mathematics is objective.

If I grant you that math is objective, does that help any?

No he will just jump to another apologist ploy

**Neo-Scholastic** · September 24, 2018 at 7:00 pm

(September 24, 2018 at 6:21 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:
(September 24, 2018 at 4:43 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Kind of hard to do when you won't even acknowledge that mathematics is objective.

If I grant you that math is objective, does that help any?

Depends on your willingness to engage in deep exegesis. What specific story concerns you?

**The Grand Nudger**

I doubt that Jorg actually had a specific story in mind, but isn't it amusing that even within the very narrow context of babykilling, you...completely worried about some endgame that isn't even there, have to wonder -which- example of babykilling you need to defend?

Allah Akbar!

Crossless2.0 · September 24, 2018 at 8:09 pm

(September 24, 2018 at 8:07 pm)Khemikal Wrote: I doubt that Jorg actually had a specific story in mind, but isn't it amusing that even within the very narrow context of babykilling, you...completely worried about some endgame that isn't even there, have to wonder -which- example of babykilling you need to defend?

“Deep” exegesis . . .

Lol

Amarok · September 24, 2018 at 8:19 pm

(September 24, 2018 at 8:07 pm)Khemikal Wrote: I doubt that Jorg actually had a specific story in mind, but isn't it amusing that even within the very narrow context of babykilling, you...completely worried about some endgame that isn't even there, have to wonder -which- example of babykilling you need to defend?

Allah Akbar!

But Khem were not all knowing surly their must be some hidden unknown reason for it Dodgy

But...But.. Freewill .... Dodgy

**The Grand Nudger**

This is why classical theism, as opposed to open theism and evangelicals attempts to carve out a newer and more decent god, strangles all of this shit in it's crib. OT style.

SteveII · (This post was last modified: September 25, 2018 at 9:09 am by SteveII.)

(September 21, 2018 at 1:25 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:
(September 21, 2018 at 12:56 pm)SteveII Wrote: And I'm sure I have pointed out to you that it is not necessary for us to be able to know what it means to be the "greatest possible being". I don't need a definition for that conception of God to be true just as I don't need to know all the natural numbers to understand the concept of infinity.

It's not an epistemological problem, Steve, as was already pointed out to you in that thread. As well as the problem that this results in your God's values being arbitrary and thus not an example of moral perfection in an independent thread. Regardless, we're back to God is good because you say so. And I'm the most beautiful woman in the world because I say so. Big deal. You can assert shit without reason. So can anybody. For the claim that God is morally perfect to have any value, it would have to be coherent. It isn't, so you're just muttering incomprehensible gibberish and hoping that nobody notices.

The Christian God is defined as the greatest possible being (scripture-informed Perfecting Being Theology). If you cobble together some lesser characteristics and say "your God could be this way", you are redefining the word. For this conversation and every one after, I do not grant the redefining of the term 'God'. There is nothing incoherent about the standard definition. You can easily glean attributes of God from the Bible and then systematize them into a doctrine using philosophy/logic. The concept has been discussed since Augustine.

Closer to the Truth has a nice series of interviews I just listened to https://www.closertotruth.com/series/wha...g-theology

(September 24, 2018 at 7:51 am)polymath257 Wrote:
(September 21, 2018 at 12:56 pm)SteveII Wrote: And I'm sure I have pointed out to you that it is not necessary for us to be able to know what it means to be the "greatest possible being". I don't need a definition for that conception of God to be true just as I don't need to know all the natural numbers to understand the concept of infinity.

You do, however, need a partial order that has a largest element. The problem is that 'greater' isn't well defined. Even if it were, there is no reason to think there is a greatest element.

So, at the very least, you need a consistent definition of 'greater'. Since there is more than one variable on which you want to measure (power, goodness, knowledge, etc), you have to find a consistent way to guarantee a maximum on each variable at the same time. This is usually impossible, even when each individual variable has a largest element.

Nope. Concerning God, the concept of 'greatest' does not require us to know what is actually the greatest. You are confusing ontology with epistemology.

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread		Author	Replies	Views	Last Post
	GoodFight310 and the visions of Hell	Ah_Hyug	0	827	September 20, 2020 at 10:59 pm Last Post: Ah_Hyug
	On the subject of Hell and Salvation	Alternatehistory95	278	35734	March 10, 2019 at 12:09 pm Last Post: The Grand Nudger
	Hello and question about hell	Kyro	80	6561	August 11, 2018 at 2:08 pm Last Post: KevinM1
	Hell and God cant Co-exist.	Socratic Meth Head	440	52951	June 22, 2016 at 8:15 am Last Post: madog
	Sin & Forgiveness	miaharun	119	17746	November 16, 2015 at 4:04 am Last Post: robvalue
	What the Hell,is Hell anyway?	Vern Cliff	31	7723	October 15, 2015 at 1:17 pm Last Post: brewer
	Why a heaven and hell couldn't exist.	dyresand	16	5866	April 5, 2015 at 5:14 pm Last Post: dyresand
	Hell and the Play Nice Christian	Cinjin	202	34893	February 26, 2015 at 3:41 pm Last Post: SteelCurtain
	Since Heaven and Hell are not temporal ..	Brakeman	130	27610	December 19, 2014 at 4:48 pm Last Post: IATIA
	Hell Houses (AKA: Hallelujah Houses, Heaven or Hell, Christian Haunted House, etc.)	Strider	25	7269	December 3, 2014 at 3:07 pm Last Post: abaris