Is nihilism the logical extreme of atheism?

[fr0d0]

Good as in functional. That's the root meaning of good.

The Natzi gas chambers were functional, but they weren't good at least not in any moral sense of the word.

If god isn't good as in, "that which is morally right" but merely as, "having the qualities required for a particular role" i.e. that of creator, then I see no difference between the proposed goodness of god and the big bang.

{Definitions quoted from https://www.google.com/search?q=good+def...channel=sb}

The singularity is perfectly 'good'. It is functional in that it brings about a universe. God, having produced said singularity, has to be superior to it (see Aquinas). So Good is morally superior to the universe, and needs to be perfectly good.

[genkaus]

Well-argued. Put like this, the errors of your reasoning become much clearer.

Reality is flawed.
Reasoning from it is limited by those flaws.
Hence the atheist position

Premise 1 is incorrect - the concept of flaw or perfection does not apply to reality unless there is an assumption of supervening consciousness. That's an assumption atheists do not accept - so if you want to establish your position as true, you need to bring evidence for god. Without it reality is neither flawed nor perfect.

God is perfectly just
Reasoning from God reasons a just reality.

This is the part where fantasy leads to more fantasy.

The two assumed beliefs here are "god exists" and "he is perfectly just" - and the logically valid conclusion would be that it results in a "just reality". But since a just reality is not evident, either one or both of your assumptions are wrong. To get around this, you fantasize about a just reality by dreaming up heaven and hell.

Human flaws exist. We are only capable of perfect justice given our inclusion of God. If we fail, then yes, it doesn't work. No problem there. This is what we deal with.

Human flaws would mean flaws in human reasoning as well - so irrespective of your god's existence, the flaws in reasoning would render humans incapable of perfect justice even with the inclusion of god.

"Christian" not acting as if God were just are exactly the same as atheists. You're not disproving Christianity by saying that people failing at Christianity define it. They don't.

It disproves your capacity for perfect justice.

Mainstream Christianity as I practice and accept it encompasses many interpretations that the church body accepts as valid. Some interpretations are judged to be flawed, like Mormonism, and are not accepted.

Accepting contradictory positions as valid call into question the soundness of argument and the truth of the premises.

Evidence of God isn't in question. Only belief is.

Simple belief in god would only go so far to establish belief in the idea of perfect justice. To establish actual existence of perfect justice, you'd need to provide evidence for the source. And if your argument is limited only to the belief in the idea of perfect justice, then those fantasies are of little use to the real world.

[Mudhammam]

Unless justice is defined as whatever god does (which is subjective at least on god's part) my point is that the Christian god does not appear just by any standard we apply to humans.

The Christian God is only ever described in the bible as acting justly.

What is the use of arguing with a person who can say this with a straight face?

[genkaus]

The singularity is perfectly 'good'.

Prove it - tautology does not serve you here.

It is functional in that it brings about a universe.

Not every singularity brings about a universe. So that cannot be ascribed as its function.

God, having produced said singularity, has to be superior to it (see Aquinas).

And here's where you bring in the evidence to show that your god produced the singularity.

So Good is morally superior to the universe, and needs to be perfectly good.

Shoddy equivocation. Even if the rest of your argument held any water, all you've done is establish the singularity as functional and thus your god as more functional. Being morally good never enters the equation.

[Jenny A]

The Natzi gas chambers were functional, but they weren't good at least not in any moral sense of the word.

If god isn't good as in, "that which is morally right" but merely as, "having the qualities required for a particular role" i.e. that of creator, then I see no difference between the proposed goodness of god and the big bang.

{Definitions quoted from https://www.google.com/search?q=good+def...channel=sb}

The singularity is perfectly 'good'. It is functional in that it brings about a universe. God, having produced said singularity, has to be superior to it (see Aquinas). So Good is morally superior to the universe, and needs to be perfectly good.

Again, you are confusing the functional use of the word good, with the moral one. Many words have more than one meaning. Conflating meanings only leads to confusion. If you mean "god is functional" just say so. But don't say functional = moral unless you really mean that. Perhaps you do, but I would argue that functionality is amoral. The goal or product is either good or bad.

[fr0d0]

Hi Jenny

My knowledge of God isn't flawed. That knowledge is so far undefeatable and therefore solid. My knowledge is however limited, as we can't know all there is to know about God.

We can make decisions based upon this reality being a just one, assuming a just God making it so. We know this reality is unjust. We witness that most days.

You and I know what justice would look like. Our perception of reality is shaped by it.

You're accusing the mainstream church of having a conflicting understanding of God, where the mainstream church maintains what it decides is a consistent understanding of God, all acknowledging the Nicene creed. You're going to have to be specific and state what exactly you find to be conflicting. We have a few different flavours of mainstream Christians here who could confirm either their connection or disconnection with me.

Belief shapes our understanding of reality. That applied to everyone.

Any flawed thinking is simply flawed thinking. It has no bearing on the differing realities perceived either side of justice.

---

Hi genkaus

I was trying to summise Jenny's points. It is a common concept that reality is unjust, and one that Christianity adopts. Human nature is flawed.
I'm not claiming anything more than a theological concept here. I'm never going to want to prove to you that there is objective proof of God that negates belief in him. Even accepting the notion is insufficient. But you get my point.

People failing at considering a just God... it was never people that were perfectly just. We fail as our nature makes us.

In not accepting coquettish positions on faith. The mainstream church accept variations that are complimentary.

[genkaus]

My knowledge of God isn't flawed.

This statement presupposes 3 things:
That a god exists.
That you know things about him.
That your knowledge corresponds to how he really is.

Without proving those three your statement is meaningless.

My knowledge is however limited, as we can't know all there is to know about God.

Being limited can be considered a flaw.

We can make decisions based upon this reality being a just one, assuming a just God making it so. We know this reality is unjust. We witness that most days.

Contradiction alert: If we know this reality is unjust and we make decision on the assumption that it is just, then we are essentially making decision based on a lie.

You and I know what justice would look like. Our perception of reality is shaped by it.

Yours maybe.

You're accusing the mainstream church of having a conflicting understanding of God, where the mainstream church maintains what it decides is a consistent understanding of God, all acknowledging the Nicene creed. You're going to have to be specific and state what exactly you find to be conflicting. We have a few different flavours of mainstream Christians here who could confirm either their connection or disconnection with me.

The bolded statement is sufficient to establish conflicting understanding of god. FYI, consistency on a subject is determined by logical coherency, not popular vote.

Belief shapes our understanding of reality. That applied to everyone.

Not everyone - for most here reality shapes beliefs.

Any flawed thinking is simply flawed thinking. It has no bearing on the differing realities perceived either side of justice.

It does if the assumption of justice is a product of flawed thinking.

[Chas]

You're adding in a few illogical caveats. IMO you're confusing what is very simple.

Reality is flawed.

Nope. No one said that. You just made it up.

Reasoning from it is limited by those flaws.

Nope. No one said that. You just made it up.

Hence the atheist position

Nope. Our perception of reality is imperfect. There is nothing wrong with reality.

[fr0d0]

God, having produced said singularity, has to be superior to it (see Aquinas).

And here's where you bring in the evidence to show that your god produced the singularity.

So Good is morally superior to the universe, and needs to be perfectly good.

Even if the rest of your argument held any water, all you've done is establish the singularity as functional and thus your god as more functional. Being morally good never enters the equation.

You need me to produce evidence of the theory of the big bang? This is a concept were discussing. You can see my source. Aquinas theologica is freely accessible on the web.

Moral goodness logically succeeds from a creator which by its defining nature has to be good. It's where the idea of a good God comes from.

[genkaus]

I was trying to summise Jenny's points. It is a common concept that reality is unjust, and one that Christianity adopts. Human nature is flawed.

Again - both of these assertions presuppose supervening consciousness.

I'm not claiming anything more than a theological concept here. I'm never going to want to prove to you that there is objective proof of God that negates belief in him. Even accepting the notion is insufficient. But you get my point.

The point I'm getting here is this: If you presuppose the fantasy notion that a perfectly just god exists then you can logically conclude that perfect justice exists and that reality is just and that all who disagree are doing so based on wrong reasoning and any glaring deviations from reality can be compensated by coming up with more fantasies.

People failing at considering a just God... it was never people that were perfectly just. We fail as our nature makes us.

Apart from simply repeating it, you haven't yet established the existence of a just god either.

In not accepting coquettish positions on faith. The mainstream church accept variations that are complimentary.

Also the variations that are contradictory.