(November 26, 2021 at 11:56 pm)Fake Messiah Wrote: Yeah, it usually comes with the claim that the "perfect creator [God] doesn't have to make the perfect creation."

Imagine if you heard about the perfect student, and you went to his school only to discover that a lot of his work is below mediocre. He certainly would not be considered an excellent student, let alone a perfect one. And yet his teachers are insisting that you can not question why the perfect student is making bad work, that the student doesn't owe you an explanation, and that you are committing a fallacy from personal incredulity.

Or imagine that you hear about the perfect architect, but when you look at the houses he made you see that he made the most basic mistakes, like he didn't make a living room, or didn't make a staircase to the upper floor, or the whole house falls apart when you open the door. This certainly would not be a good architect or a perfect one, and yet the proponents of him being the perfect architect say that he doesn't owe you an explanation.

I can't tell the difference between a perfect student who outputs a lackluster result and a imperfect student that outputs a lackluster result
They both are essentially the same.

Imagine if one alkaline battery shows 1.3 V and another alkaline battery shows 1.3 V and the salesmen tells me the second battery is perfectly charged.
Perfection is sometimes easily measurable. Just use your multimeter in this case. Both these batteries are spent.

Humans have developed all kinds of telescopes and probes. Do the heavens look perfect? It doesn't look perfect for human life.
I suppose it is perfect for some life form. Some bacteria can survive freezing and high vacuum and radiation.

(November 26, 2021 at 8:16 pm)Gwaithmir Wrote: Maybe the theist's God doesn't owe me an explanation, but the God isn't the one making the claim. The theist certainly owes me an explanation. If one is not forthcoming, I walk away from the discussion as it is a waste of my time. 

God would have explained himself sufficiently in my book by telling me that he owes me no explanation whatsoever.     But he didn’t tell me that he owes me no explanation.      Therefore I conclude that:

1.  God believe he owes me an explanation.

2.  And he is nonetheless incapable of delivering the explanation which he believes he owes me.

How about 'Oh please, delusional babble gets me hot"?

First prove your god exists, then we can talk about what he owes.

Can you at least explain "explaination"

Wait! Are atheists defending the Principle of Sufficient Reason? They ought to be careful now. There might be things theu might themselves consider brute facts for the sake of other objections.

(November 26, 2021 at 7:58 pm)T.J. Wrote: How often have we heard this argument among theists? That their all powerful, all mighty god that created everything doesn't have to answer to his supposed creation for anything he does no matter how questionable or horrible it seems. They don't seem to understand the problem with this logic. About leaving a supreme being unchecked.

What are some of your responses when a theist pulls this one out of their bag? I'd love to hear them.

Would the same argument work, if it were your boss at work? 

You, "Why did your gas line explode and injure me?"

Boss, "I don't owe you an explination".

God is the worst argument for workplace safety.

(November 27, 2021 at 9:02 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Wait! Are atheists defending the Principle of Sufficient Reason? They ought to be careful now. There might be things theu might themselves consider brute facts for the sake of other objections.

Are you saying that the claims that theists explain away as being a mystery actually have no explanation?

There's a big difference between believing that certain things should have an explanation and that all things do have an explanation.

And this ignores the fact that theists accept certain things as brute facts only halfway. Theists want to claim that God's nature is just a brute fact and therefore his morality is also a brute fact. But one of the characteristics of a brute fact is that it is arbitrary. If God's morality is arbitrary, then it isn't moral. But they won't have any of that. When it comes to needing an explanation, they want it to be a brute fact. When it comes to being arbitrary, they want to say something else.

If a God exists and doesn't owe me an explanation, then I don't owe that deity obedience.

If God exists and doesn't owe me enough evidence to believe in its existence, then I do not owe it belief.

---

(November 27, 2021 at 9:02 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Wait! Are atheists defending the Principle of Sufficient Reason? They ought to be careful now. There might be things theu might themselves consider brute facts for the sake of other objections.

Nope. Not that at all. It is the theist that is claiming I owe God obedience and belief in spite of no evidence of existence and evidence from the stories of atrocious morality.

A pot that is conscious would certainly have the right to question the potter about how it was made.