(April 10, 2009 at 11:38 am)fr0d0 Wrote: 1. You applied morals to God, I didn't. I just said we can know that God is good.Self evident contradiction.
fr0d0 Wrote:. I didn't 'claim' anything. I believe that to be true, and showed you how I reason that. This will have no bearing on your reality at all.
You said/stated/announced/claimed that God is all good. I agree that it has no bearing on my reality, only on your perception of reality.
fr0d0 Wrote:3. Again, you wanted to label God with a human characteristic, not me. I pointed out reasoning why that isn't logical. Again. I make no claim.
I'm quite convinced I only entered this debate after you claimed that God is all good (post#20). Therefore it was you who wanted to label God with a human characteristic (although not strictly a characteristic exclusive to humans).
fr0d0 Wrote:4. I don't label with human characteristic. I show how reasoning helps to know God's nature.One of your first replies to me was on the topic of jealousy and you told me it is alright for God in the context of a loving carer. To me, this seems like you're applying human traits to God (jealousy, love, parent-like care).
fr0d0 Wrote:5. From my reasoning we can know this about God's nature. This isn't all there is to God.Yeah, I didn't assume "God is all good" to be the absolute peak of our knowlegde of his nature. I merely wanted to point out that you have limited God to only being capable of "good" things, before going on to claim that characterising God limits him which is illogical.
