[Serious] Fallacies & Strategies

[The Grand Nudger]

Do you realize that you just used the same non sequitur you were only recently criticizing as a bad argument when it came from atheists about your own god?

You've concluded, above, that because the christian god does bad and or irrational things, it doesn't exist.

Do you realize that you immediately moved from that into the very next argument you recently criticized when it came from atheists about your own god?

You've concluded that there's something incompatible between hell and unconditional benevolence. Like you know everything, or something, including that hell can't be for their own good or of their own choosing.

What strategies, do you think...kloro, help when dealing with logical fallacies? Can you remember a time you employed a logical fallacy, someone pointed it out, and that correction stuck?

As for the god of islam, it can call itself anything it wants. It can call itself merciful and I can call myself a knock out blonde with a chest to shame jessica rabbit. A person can take a look at what this god is purported to have done and decide...just as they might in simply glancing my way...that we've taken liberties in our descriptions of ourselves. The issue in moral disagreement is not in whether a god calls itself a thing, or whether you call it a thing, but in whether the thing described actually meets the moral standard of the objection. If I say I think god is evil because it does x y and z - and you say..sure, it does x y z ..but it's merciful...then I'll simply say so what. Many evil people have shown mercy.

[R00tKiT]

Not at all, @The Grand Nudger .

Unconditional benevolence is, as you might have noticed, unconditional! It implies that regardless of what the person does, they would get some divine reward in the end. If someone chooses hell, and God sends them to hell as a result, then God's benevolence is not unconditional, it's conditioned by the person's choices.

And eternity in hell can never be a good outcome, it's the worst conceivable outcome.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'll just point out again that you've previously argued against your current position. Can you remember a time that a person pointed out a logical fallacy that you'd employed, and their correction stuck? How did they go about it?

[R00tKiT]

I don't see how I am contradicting myself, can you elaborate. I said that people not being omniscient prevents them from asserting that apparent evil in our world is really evil.

The contradiction about christian belif is an internal inconsistency between the properties of the christian God, this has nothing to do with anybody's knowledge of evil: an entity that is benevolent to you without conditions can't also send you to hell because you didn't satisfy the conditions to access heaven. I think I made the contradiction as plain as it can be now.

[The Grand Nudger]

Do you possess a gods knowledge? Can you as a lowly human worm truly declare that god has done something evil instead of benevolent by damning or allowing some people to reside in hell? If a god did do some irrational or bad thing, would that mean that the god could not exist?

Don't get me wrong, I think that the christian god is a rats nest of issues owing to the indelible stamp of it's lowly origin, but that's an evergreen statement about gods. Yours is as well. I'm just pointing out that you've already foreclosed on your own defense of your own god as well as this criticism of others gods.....right here in this thread. I'm also asking whether anyone has ever successfully gotten through to you when you've employed a fallacy - because I want to try whatever strategy or approach they used in thread, to see if lightning can strike twice.

[bennyboy]

I said that people not being omniscient prevents them from asserting that apparent evil in our world is really evil.

This feels like a theological No-True-Scotsman argument: "What you call evil isn't really, really evil."

I don't need to be omniscient to know that a baby suffering of malaria and dying is evil, or that bombing someone's family because they don't share your religious views is evil.

If those things have to happen for God's plan to unfold to its fruition, then I'll simply say that at best, a good end required evil means.  If you want to say, "Well, since it serves a good goal, it is not evil," then we're out of theological discussion and into the simple meaning of words-- I will not accept your definition of the word "good."

[Deesse23]

that people not being omniscient prevents them from asserting that apparent evil in our world is really evil.

It also prevents you from knowing that apparent good in the world is really good.

Why are you trying to do apparent good then?
Why are you following your imaginary god? Because you think he is powerful? Are you the kind of person that sucks up to bullies?

[LinuxGal]

Not at all, @The Grand Nudger .

Unconditional benevolence is, as you might have noticed, unconditional! It implies that regardless of what the person does, they would get some divine reward in the end. If someone chooses hell, and God sends them to hell as a result, then God's benevolence is not unconditional, it's conditioned by the person's choices.

And eternity in hell can never be a good outcome, it's the worst conceivable outcome.

If someone fears nonexistence, then eternity in hell is infinitely preferable.

[arewethereyet]

Closed year+ old thread.