It's a basic attribute that we can know about God. The evidence is in the logic that leads to that. The opposing evidence is that everything in the bible must mean the opposite of what it says. Seems like a no brainer to me

(October 5, 2014 at 11:08 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Seems like a no brainer to me

To me too .. but not in the good way.

(October 5, 2014 at 10:55 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Yes because that is thoroughly just. God can do no other. Objectively, that is his nature. God isn't good... good is God. Just like a court might sentence a criminal to punishment. Difference is... God is sure of his convictions, where a human judge can't be.

Mao was thoroughly just. Mao could do no other. Objectively, that is his nature. Mao isn't good... good is Mao. Just like a court might sentence a criminal to punishment. Difference is... Mao is sure of his convictions, where a judge can't be.

Works on so many levels.

Argumentum ad ner ner ner ner ner

Logic has absolutely nothing to do with nihilism. Nor with atheism.

Believe, or do not... neither has a logical concern. Neither makes much of a difference ultimately... you are you, and you are here... and you can accept that. Or... you can die. This is an application of logic... but don't worry, it's misattributed by "logicians" and "skeptics" often enough that it could well be meaningless arbitration in the first place.

But what's really laughable is that some fools actually subscribe to nihilism like it's some ultimate pessimistic truth. It certainly could not be considered logical in any respect. Most of us are nihilistic deterministic existentialists... because we're logical subjectivists who may or may not fully recognize our nature.

Logic's out the window in the end... can you believe it? You'd better hope you don't.

(October 5, 2014 at 10:55 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Yes because that is thoroughly just. God can do no other. Objectively, that is his nature. God isn't good... good is God. Just like a court might sentence a criminal to punishment. Difference is... God is sure of his convictions, where a human judge can't be.

Normally I'd spend some time explaining exactly why this statement is amazingly circular, but as it happens I read a blog post recently that expresses the sentiment far more compactly than I could, by posing a short exchange between a theist making the same claim you are, and a second party:

Quote: “What is goodness?”

“God is goodness by nature”

“How do you know what is good?”

“Because it matches up with God.”

“How do you know that God is good?”

“Because I examine God and find he aligns with goodness”

“So what you’re saying is that God is like God, and that’s how you know he’s good”

“Yes. Don’t worry, Aquinas figured it out”

That's basically my sentiment too; if you're going to define god as good divorced from his actions then you've essentially stripped the word of all meaning. I do, however, have something to say about your last sentence: the sureness of your convictions has no impact on the correctness, or moral content, of those same convictions.

Quote:It's a basic attribute that we can know about God. The evidence is in the logic that leads to that. The opposing evidence is that everything in the bible must mean the opposite of what it says. Seems like a no brainer to me

And this is your support? Restating the initial claim in your first sentence, saying essentially "the evidence that supports that is the thing that supports that" in your second, and finishing with "if god isn't good then the bible is wrong!" as though that actually carries any weight as an argument?

For serious, though?

(October 5, 2014 at 10:55 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Yes because that is thoroughly just. God can do no other. Objectively, that is his nature. God isn't good... good is God. Just like a court might sentence a criminal to punishment. Difference is... God is sure of his convictions, where a human judge can't be.

In other words, it can be maintained that good is God so long as we ensure that both terms are interchangeably used as vacuously as possible and stripped of any meaningful content.

I'm pretty sure the accused wouldn't want to put it that way. But yeah that about fits.

(October 6, 2014 at 6:30 am)Alice Wrote: Logic has absolutely nothing to do with nihilism. Nor with atheism.

Nihilism includes the negation of the value of reason as a means to knowledge, so that too is in the mix.

(October 6, 2014 at 10:21 am)ChadWooters Wrote:

(October 6, 2014 at 6:30 am)Alice Wrote: Logic has absolutely nothing to do with nihilism. Nor with atheism.

Nihilism includes the negation of the value of reason as a means to knowledge, so that too is in the mix.

Didn't see that coming. I thought nihilism was just about holding values and such to be objective.