(September 18, 2012 at 2:13 pm)MysticKnight Wrote:

(September 18, 2012 at 2:11 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: I'm just not sure how A->B can be assumed to be true on its own if A hasn't shown to be true. By using A->B you have assumed A to be true and hence proving B (i.e. God, which is the thing of concern) and then this allows you to go back and [wrongly] accept that A must be true for the whole thin to be able to work.

Maybe I've missed the point. I'm not sure.

A-> B in itself says nothing about whether A is true or B is true. It only says if A is true, then B is true. Therefore A ->B doesn't assume A is true.

Yep, I agree. But in your post that I quoted originally you start your chain of thought by saying 'if we know A->B to be true, then...' but my question is how can we conclude that without proving A?

(September 18, 2012 at 1:59 pm)Tobie Wrote:

(September 17, 2012 at 2:47 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: I made an argument that goes a long the lines of this.

(a) (Objective/real) Morality
(b) God exists
© a -> b

I argue if we know © to be true, then (a) is true.

Knowing © to be true, implies (a) to be true, and it implies (b) to true (by chain).

Your logic failure here is that knowing © to be true doesn't mean (a) is true. We can declare © to be true, but declaring it true does not make objective morality exist.

For a "reducto ad absurdum" example;
I can conclude that having an 8 foot long penis would make walking around quite difficult. If we go by the logic in your post, it would mean I had an 8 foot long penis.

I'm not arguing universals, I'm arguing a particular thing (morality).

---

(September 18, 2012 at 2:17 pm)FallentoReason Wrote:

(September 18, 2012 at 2:13 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: A-> B in itself says nothing about whether A is true or B is true. It only says if A is true, then B is true. Therefore A ->B doesn't assume A is true.

Yep, I agree. But in your post that I quoted originally you start your chain of thought by saying 'if we know A->B to be true, then...' but my question is how can we conclude that without proving A?

Oh ok. I see what happened. I'm not saying [ A -> B] -> A as a universal. I'm arguing in particular with morality, it doesn't make sense we know for sure it must come from God, but then it doesn't exist.

---

Here I will make the argument clearer:

"If is the case that we know objective morality must come from God, then objective morality exists."

That is what I'm arguing. I stated why I feel this is the case.

Let me see. If God does not exist, objective morality does not exist. Objective morality does exist, therefore God exists. Is that about it?

So it's 'if not P, then not Q; Q; therefore P'. By analogy, 'If bananas aren't fruit, then they aren't blue; they're not blue, therefore they're not fruit.' Something is wrong there, I suspect affirming the consequent has been snuck in, since the original argument is easily rephrased as: 'If God exists, then objective morality exists. Objective morality exists. Therefore God exists.' That's definitely affirming the consequent, no difference in form from: 'If I am the president of the USA, I am a human. I am a human. Therefore I am president of the USA.'

Not A -> Not B = B -> A

(September 18, 2012 at 2:26 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Let me see. If God does not exist, objective morality does not exist. Objective morality does exist, therefore God exists. Is that about it?

Both phrases mean the same thing.

Quote:So it's 'if not P, then not Q; Q; therefore P'. By analogy, 'If bananas aren't fruit, then they aren't blue;

they're not blue, therefore they're not fruit.'

More like


If Bananas aren't fruit, then they aren't blue.
If Bananas are blue, then they are fruit.

Would be equivalent statements.

Your statement is not proven by either.

Quote:Something is
wrong there, I suspect affirming the consequent has been snuck in, since the original argument is easily rephrased as: 'If God exists, then objective morality exists. Objective morality exists. Therefore God exists.'

The argument is however "If objective morality exists, then God exists".

Quote: That's definitely affirming the consequent, no difference in form from: 'If I am the president of the USA, I am a human. I am a human. Therefore I am president of the USA.'

That would be the case, but it's not the argument here.

(September 18, 2012 at 2:37 am)FallentoReason Wrote:

(September 18, 2012 at 12:18 am)Godschild Wrote: Everyone can a-b-c this question to death and it will not answer a thing. There is suffering in this world because people introduced it through sin, God allows this suffering to continue to teach us. I know most of you will not believe nor accept this but it is true and I do not think it can be shown to be otherwise.

Can the hopeless that die through starvation or disease before their 5th birthday be taught by said God? I'm hoping the answer is "yes" because said God supposedly breathed life into every last one of them and gave them "purpose" in life.

While you set back and enjoy your popcorn (with guilt I would think), God has made plans for these children to be in heaven, with a mansion to live in. While you do nothing to help them, you will _____ in hell for eternity. It could be He was giving you a chance to have a purpose in life by helping them.

(September 19, 2012 at 12:29 am)Godschild Wrote:

(September 18, 2012 at 2:37 am)FallentoReason Wrote: Can the hopeless that die through starvation or disease before their 5th birthday be taught by said God? I'm hoping the answer is "yes" because said God supposedly breathed life into every last one of them and gave them "purpose" in life.

While you set back and enjoy your popcorn (with guilt I would think), God has made plans for these children to be in heaven, with a mansion to live in. While you do nothing to help them, you will _____ in hell for eternity. It could be He was giving you a chance to have a purpose in life by helping them.

Bloody hell.. The cruelty and unfairness of your god increases by the minute.

So why do I have to be the one that gets tested all the while these kids get a free pass to heaven? Let me guess, they're actually angels that have been assigned with the specific task of testing the 1st world countries?

---

A word of advice: improvisation in discussion only digs deeper holes. I learnt this the hard way as a former apologist.

(September 18, 2012 at 12:18 am)Godschild Wrote: There is suffering in this world because people introduced it through sin, God allows this suffering to continue to teach us.

Stimbo Wrote:Google "neural tube defects". Even Wikipedia will do. Now tell me again how "people introduced it through sin" and while you're at it, please tell me what lesson this god is teaching us here that could be worth the suffering of more than three hundred thousand innocent newborns and their families each year. Perhaps it was how to reduce the number of NTD cases through the use of Folic Acid? Something else that people introduced into the world to combat the suffering that your god allegedly allows.

Are you speaking of all the non believing drug addicts that selfishly continue to use drugs will carrying a child, or maybe it's all those party girls who drink themselves into oblivion every weekend while carrying a child, or could it be all those women that know they have STD's and yet have children without first getting rid of their STD first. Yes, blame God for these, you are not willing to blame people or help correct these problems.

Godschild, your all over the place. You said it is to teach us a lesson. What is that lesson?

(September 19, 2012 at 12:29 am)Godschild Wrote: It could be He was giving you a chance to have a purpose in life by helping them.

Right, so your god makes innocents suffer so that the white man can get his purpose in life? There's something so profoundly sick and twisted with your statements regarding this GC.

(September 19, 2012 at 3:49 am)Kayenneh Wrote:

(September 19, 2012 at 12:29 am)Godschild Wrote: It could be He was giving you a chance to have a purpose in life by helping them.

Right, so your god makes innocents suffer so that the white man can get his purpose in life? There's something so profoundly sick and twisted with your statements regarding this GC.

Remember though, our moral values towards this count for nothing. It is "God's Righteousness" that counts and clearly this is in his will, therefore, good.

Yeah, it makes me feel a little queasy at times as well.

---

Here's another question for you Godschild, because I know you can't answer the other theological problem I brought to the surface:

How do you know that you're not actually worshipping Lucifer/Satan? If it looks like the devil, acts like the devil, then...