Quite the opposite.

(September 20, 2013 at 3:51 pm)John V Wrote: Oh, that? I stand by it. If the Bible took the attributes of god and put them in a list called "attributes of a perfect god," you wouldn't say "Oh, crap, the god of the bible is perfect!" You're being disingenuous.

No, in that case the bible would be disingenuous; it might be your holy book, but it doesn't get to redefine words any more than any other text does. If the bible sought to list the attributes of water, and one of those attributes was "is made of cheese," then the bible's definition of water would be wrong, and nobody would be dishonest in saying that cheese isn't water.

Words have meanings, and holy texts aren't exempt from having to follow those. The word "perfect" means something, and based on its objective meaning the god of the bible does not measure up; what you're trying to do is call god perfect based on an (incorrect according to the dictionary) definition that's unique to the bible, and then swap it out for the dictionary meaning when it's convenient. It's a linguistic trick, it's disingenuous on its own, and it's not what you're really arguing for.

The best one could say is that, according to the attributes of perfection listed in the bible, god would be perfect. Congrats, you've defined a label into existence; god is perfect only by redefining the word perfect to mean "acceptably imperfect."

Quote:Ah, the god-would-necessarily-do-what-I-think-he-would-do argument. Haven't heard that one in a few hours.

As opposed to your position, where you don't bother saying what you think god would do, only denying what he wouldn't based on the uncomfortable accusations of those you disagree with, all the while implicitly thinking that god-would-necessarily-do-what-you-think-he-would-do, right?

If god is omnipotent then why does he have to resort to genocide constantly?

(September 20, 2013 at 4:30 pm)Rationalman Wrote:

(September 20, 2013 at 4:15 pm)Godschild Wrote: You've said you're good and have supplied no demonstrable evidence, so do we believe you or wait for your absolute proof.

GC

You would have a point except that it is not an extraordinary claim for a person to say they are good. Evidence is not really necessary for claims that you can believe off hand. A deity on the other hand is an extraordinary claim, and so requires extraordinary evidence. In fact, god needs even more extraordinary evidence for the claim that he is good since there is quite a lot of evidence that contradicts that claim.

I did not ask for extraordinary evidence and didn't say it was an extraordinary claim, however it still needs demonstrable evidence to be proven true. How else will we know he is good or not.

GC

(September 20, 2013 at 11:40 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: If god is omnipotent then why does he have to resort to genocide constantly?

What use is omnipotence if you can't wipe out better than 99.999% of the life on a planet every so often?

(September 20, 2013 at 4:15 pm)Godschild Wrote:

(September 20, 2013 at 9:29 am)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: No but there is the fact that there womething like 40,000 denomination of christianity, each with a different interpretation. Of god that is good basically because he says he's good

You've said you're good and have supplied no demonstrable evidence, so do we believe you or wait for your absolute proof.

GC

If he starts demanding worship on the basis of his claim I'd wait.

Also I do not claim that I am better then anyone else here just to clear that up

(September 20, 2013 at 9:56 pm)Esquilax Wrote: No, in that case the bible would be disingenuous; it might be your holy book, but it doesn't get to redefine words any more than any other text does. If the bible sought to list the attributes of water, and one of those attributes was "is made of cheese," then the bible's definition of water would be wrong, and nobody would be dishonest in saying that cheese isn't water.

Words have meanings, and holy texts aren't exempt from having to follow those. The word "perfect" means something, and based on its objective meaning the god of the bible does not measure up; what you're trying to do is call god perfect based on an (incorrect according to the dictionary) definition that's unique to the bible, and then swap it out for the dictionary meaning when it's convenient. It's a linguistic trick, it's disingenuous on its own, and it's not what you're really arguing for.

I've previously noted the dictionary meaning of perfect. Let's review, as you don't seem to have looked it up yourself:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/perfect?s=t

perfect
adjective
1. conforming absolutely to the description or definition of an ideal type

Nothing about genocide in there.

Quote:The best one could say is that, according to the attributes of perfection listed in the bible, god would be perfect. Congrats, you've defined a label into existence; god is perfect only by redefining the word perfect to mean "acceptably imperfect."

There is no redefining of definition in what you say. The fact is that different people have different definitions of the "ideal type" mentioned in the dictionary definition above.

(September 21, 2013 at 6:28 am)John V Wrote: I've previously noted the dictionary meaning of perfect. Let's review, as you don't seem to have looked it up yourself:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/perfect?s=t

perfect
adjective
1. conforming absolutely to the description or definition of an ideal type

Nothing about genocide in there.

So, your definition of an "ideal type" allows for genocide? In any form, or just if god does it?

Quote:There is no redefining of definition in what you say. The fact is that different people have different definitions of the "ideal type" mentioned in the dictionary definition above.

Even taking this into account there's a very simple fact you're seeking to ignore; if humans are imperfect and you're claiming that your god isn't, then it logically follows that the things that are unacceptable for humans must be infinitely more so for god. Things that are a function of our sinful, imperfect nature (violence, jealousy, depravity, dishonesty) cannot be a part of god's, that just follows; a perfect being can possess no attributes that he himself has labelled imperfect.

And yet genocide is by definition violent. God admits he's a jealous god. His wrathful bullshit is wonderfully depraved, and he outright lied to Adam and Eve according to the bible... where is the ideal type in this?

Which is why your lot loves redefining every last word you can get your hands on; the only way you can keep these mutually contradictory claims straight is by warping language with misapplied philosophical concepts, like the "perfect righteousness" that you'll undoubtedly throw around in your response post to tell me why genocide is okay when god does it.

That might be enough for you, but there's nothing righteous about a double standard.

(September 21, 2013 at 12:59 am)Godschild Wrote: I did not ask for extraordinary evidence and didn't say it was an extraordinary claim, however it still needs demonstrable evidence to be proven true. How else will we know he is good or not.

GC

Actually no, since good people are quite common and there is no need to believe that he isn't good. I'll give you a list of other things that he could do or have that doesn't need evidence:
He has:
A dog
A cat
A house
A car
A bike
Little things like these do not really require evidence unless you are being pedantic or there is evidence that would contradict the claim e.g. He says he has a dog but he is also allergic and has a phobia of them. See this would make me question his claim and then I would want evidence.